President Bush on 60 Minutes
Strong, Resolute, Human
By Mark I Posted in Featured Stories | The White House — Comments (89) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Last night, President Bush was interviewed on 60 Minutes by Scott Pelley. The interview was conducted at Camp David in the wake of the president’s prime time address to outline changes in the nation’s strategy in Iraq.
In the interview, the president was everything we have come to expect him to be when it comes to the war on terror. He was strong, resolute, and even feisty at times; yet he displayed the humanity his critics charge is not in him. He was clear in his explanations of the stakes in Iraq for the United States. He demonstrated himself to be likeable, even if the policy he advances is unpopular. And, most importantly, he gave not one inch of ground to the new political “reality” in Washington.
Read on…
The broadcast interview can by following this link and clicking on “Pres. Bush Candid About Iraq” in the video player. Below are some extended excerpts from the transcript.
SCOTT PELLEY: The war on terror, in a sense, began in this room, began in this cabin where your Cabinet meeting was held. Back then the whole country was with you. And now you seem to have lost them. Why do you think so?
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Not to correct you, but the war on terror began on the streets of New York when an enemy attacked us. But you're right. We came here to plan a response. And, you know, I can remember thinking that it's gonna take a monumental effort to keep the country's attention on this war because it's an interesting dilemma for the president. On the one hand, you want them to understand we're at war. On the other hand, you want people to go about their daily lives. In other words, people can't be looking over their shoulder and seeing the next terrorist attack. And America has gone ahead. Our economy's good and people are, you know, helping their neighbors. And so I'm [sic] not that the danger the country felt after September 11th has slipped. Secondly, the Iraq War hadn't gone as well as I had hoped at this point in time. I mean, in my speech to the country I said we had good successes in 2005, and I truly believe we're gonna be in a position to reduce our presence. And then the situation changed on the ground. And people are, you know, people are discouraged. They don't approve of where we are. And so I think it's where the country is.
PELLEY: Most Americans at this point in time don't believe in this war in Iraq. They want you to get us out of there.
BUSH: I would hope they'd want us to succeed before we get out there. That's the decision I had to make. You know, Scott, I thought a lot about different options. One was doing nothing, just kind of the status quo. And I didn't think that was acceptable, and I think most Americans don't think it's acceptable. Secondly, we'd get out.
PELLEY: You actually thought about that?
BUSH: Of course I have. I think about it a lot, about different options. Listen, I've sat down with a lot of members of Congress, both parties, good decent people, who've said, "Start withdrawing now." I've thought about that, and my attitude is if we were to start withdrawing now, we'd have a crisis in our hands in Iraq. And not only in Iraq, but failure in Iraq will embolden the enemy. And the enemy is al-Qaeda and extremists. Failure in Iraq would empower Iran, which poses a significant threat to world peace. Failure in Iraq would provide safe haven, and the extremists still want to attack us. In other words, there's a lot of reasons that I know we must succeed. And so I thought long and hard about would withdrawal cause victory or cause success. And the answer is I don't believe so, and neither do a lot of experts. And so then I began to think, well, if failure's not an option and we've gotta succeed, how best to do so? And that's why I came up with the plan I did.
PELLEY You think the whole region could be in play? Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait?
BUSH: Absolutely. No question in my mind. And I know this is hard for some Americans to understand. The operative phrase that I thought made a lot of sense about this war is: if we fail in Iraq, the enemy will follow us here. And the point I make is that what happens in the Middle East matters to the homeland. And that's different than in some past engagements. Secondly, chaos in the Middle East will empower extremists who hate America. And failure in Iraq, defeat of America, in quotes, will then embolden these extremists. They'll be able to recruit more. They'll be able to find more suiciders. They'll have resources at their availability, like energy if they were able to topple modern governments. In other words, these people have a plan. They have a vision of the world. And they intend to use murder to enact their vision. And I fully understand that. You know, some of my buddies in Texas say, “You know, let them fight it out. What business is it of ours? You got rid of Saddam. Just let them slug it out.” And that's a temptation that I know a lot of people feel. But if we do not succeed in Iraq, we will leave behind a Middle East which will endanger America in the future.
PELLEY: Instability in Iraq threatens the entire region?
BUSH: If the government falls apart and there is sectarian enclaves and violence, it'll invite Iran into the Shia neighborhoods, Sunni extremists into the Sunni neighborhoods, Kurdish separatist movements. All of which would threaten moderate people, moderate governments, and all of which will end up creating conditions that could lead to attacks here in America.
PELLEY: But wasn't it your administration that created the instability in Iraq?
BUSH: Well, our administration took care of a source of instability in Iraq. Envision a world in which Saddam Hussein was rushing for a nuclear weapon to compete against Iran. My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the correct decision in my judgment. We didn't find the weapons we thought we would find or the weapons everybody thought he had. But he was a significant source of instability.
PELLEY: It's much more unstable now, Mr. President.
BUSH: Well, no question decisions have made things unstable. But the question is can we succeed. And I believe we can. Listen, I'd like to see stability and a unified Iraq. A young democracy will provide the stability we look for. I will tell you that if we just isolate ourselves from the Middle East and hope for the best, we will not address the conditions that had led young suiciders to get on airplanes to come and attack us in the first place.
The president handled a set of pretty straightforwardly liberal questions here with a vigor that was not present in his prime time appearance. Right from the start, he refuses to accept Pelley’s premise that the war on terror is a creation of his Administration. He makes some news by discussing the fact that pulling out of Iraq was an option under consideration in the days and weeks leading up to his speech. His explanation of the stakes for the United States in Iraq is clear and readily understandable even for those of us without political science degrees or experience in military planning. And then he finishes off by spiritedly defending his decision to topple Saddam Hussein.
The president seemed annoyed by Pelley’s question about the source of instability in Iraq, as well he should have been. Pelley had set him up with the prior question about instability in Iraq threatening the entire region. This was the “Saddam was contained” meme rearing its ugly head once again. The president’s reply that “decisions have made things unstable” was seized upon by CBS as the pull quote from the interview. But, upon watching it, President Bush came across as a parent lecturing a petulant teenager when he answered this question. It was not an admission of anything, as CBS and the left would have had it believed.
The most interesting part of the interview, however, came toward the end, when Pelley asked the president about the new Democratic Congress’ plans to thwart his plans to stabilize Iraq.
PELLEY: Do you believe that the House has the constitutional authority to prevent you from the troop build-up? Can they stop you?
BUSH: By not funding the troops I suspect is what you're referring to.
PELLEY: That would be one . . .
BUSH: I assume that's one of their options. I will fight that, of course. 'Cause I think when you got a soldier in harm's way, they deserve a full support. I can understand why somebody doesn't agree with my plan, and there's gonna be plenty of opinions I'm sure about that in Congress, but when our troops are there, they need to be supported.
PELLEY: The Democrat leadership says, "We wanna support the troops who are on the ground. We just wanna redline the extra 20,000."
BUSH: Yeah. I will resist that. That would mean that they're not willing to support a plan that I believe will work and solve the situation. Listen, we've got people criticizing this plan before it's had a chance to work. And I, therefore, think they have an extra responsibility to show us a plan that will work. In other words, they're saying, "We're not even gonna fund this thing." And they're not gonna give it a chance.
PELLEY: There's no Democrat plan.
BUSH: It doesn't look like it to me. And maybe there will be one. Now, I've listened to a lot of good folks who are Democrats who have expressed their opinions. They're just as patriotic as I am. And the interesting is, Scott, a lot of people are saying, "Well, we can't afford to fail." In other words, people understand the consequences of failure. But what's deafening is those who say "we can't afford to fail and here's the plan that will cause us not to fail." Frankly, that's not their responsibility. It's my responsibility to put forward the plan that I think will succeed. I believe if they start trying to cut off funds, they better explain to the American people and the soldiers why their plan will succeed.
PELLEY: Do you believe as commander-in-chief you have the authority to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do?
BUSH: In this situation, I do, yeah. Now, I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I made my decision, and we're going forward.
That last statement is a bold assertion by the president and would no doubt make for an interesting Constitutional law debate. That the president would assert this authority on the heels of the Democrats regaining control of Congress and amidst all the high-minded discussions in Washington about their options for blocking the president’s plans, says a great deal about his mind-set going into these last two years of his term. As far as the war on terror is concerned, we can expect the president to prosecute it with all the urgency it requires. He will not allow past mistakes or present criticisms to tie his hands in the future. And, most importantly, he will not allow short-term political considerations to color his judgment about the necessity of winning and the tactics required.
All in all, this was a strong performance by the president. In it, he provided a glimpse into his decision making process and demonstrated the seriousness with which takes his obligations as Commander-in-Chief. At the same time, he defended his decision to liberate Iraq and demonstrated the un-seriousness of his critics, who are long on complaints and short on solutions.
In contrast to the poll numbers, President Bush is a likeable man. He is a fundamentally decent person who views getting it right as his chief concern. Sometimes, this redounds to his detriment, as he tends to allow his critics free shots because he views trading punches as apart from that goal. His policies tend to suffer as a result. Even the most well crafted of policies by the most beloved of presidents would show cracks in the face of the onslaught that President Bush’s initiatives have received. The White House should put him in this kind of setting more often. It allows his decency and humanity to come through, and provides a sharp contrast to his critics. The last two years of this presidency can still be productive ones. How the White House decides to present the president could go a long way toward making that wish a reality.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Leave The Yuan Alone — Comments (39) »
President Bush on 60 Minutes 89 Comments (0 topical, 89 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
I've listened to a lot of good folks who are Democrats who have expressed their opinions. They're just as patriotic as I am.
As long as the President refuses to confront the FACT that Democrats (at least the Congressional Democrats) are NOT "good folks" and are NOT "patriotic" we will never get out of the mess at home.
In point of fact, the people who now run the Congress have exactly no workable vision or plan for dealing with Islam. They are in total denial about the result of a US defeat/pull out of Iraq. They refuse to see the reason we are in this mess in the first place is because we are viewed as weak. The Democratic Party and the press undermining our ability to follow through and finish off a victory after Tet in Vietnam was the foundational event for people who want to take on the US. Carter reinforced the idea that we will do nothing, Reagan kept it alive when he didn't respond to the murder of Marines in Lebanon and then when he intervened to stop the Israelis from completely wiping out the PLO in Beirut. Bush41 didn't go to Baghdad, and Clinton ran like a screaming little girl from Somalia and didn't respond to the embassy bombings or the Cole. Bush43 came in and didn't ratchet things up until 911.
They want to "talk". They think that Islamists can be negotiated with. They think that adopting Jimmy Carter's bought and paid for by Islamists position on Israel will somehow stop the violence.
President Bush, please try really hard to understand this. The enemy you are facing at home, the Democratic Party and the media, are better organized, better financed and every bit as opposed to a US victory in Iraq as are the Mullahs in Tehran.
It is they who will manage our defeat. It is they who will claim victory. And when they're done, the US will be just like Iceland on the world stage.
___________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"... 
Senior Writer
since fixed...
____________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"... Senior Writer
and I don't disagree with 99% of what you say and I would love it if Bush would take on the Dems in blunt terms,
BUT
as a tactical matter, it would be best if GOP elected leaders in Congress did it. Bush alone doing it would not solve the problem. GOP Colleagues doing it face to face with the dems on live TV talk shows would solve the problem very quickly. The public would see the GOP saying what they know in their hearts but have been PC'ed into silence about. The Dems would think twice about being called out on live TV by a person that would not back down. The people respect courage and plain speaking, and the power of seeing it done by a GOP rep sitting right beside the target is infinitely more powerful than seeing a President saying it in a speech.
Catch Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here on Tuesday in The Charlotte Observer. GC blogs at a Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report
The HinzSight Report
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
And the problem comes back to Bush. If somebody in Congress - or outside of Congress for that matter - did take them on, Bush would stand with the Democrats and the media.
Cases in point (I'm confining myself to one each because I actually have work to do today and these two are both obvious and easy):
1. The SwiftVets stood up to Kerry. Kerry & Co. were wasting Bush on his service with TANG, demanding he release his military records so they could "prove" something. Or anything. Bush releases his military records completely and fully to all the press and the public. Kerry never does. The Swifties take him on about HIS record in Vietnam and Bush defends Kerry. He could have just kept silent or said something to the effect that "...they are veterans who served alongside the Senator and they are entitled to speak their minds." But he didn't. And BTW, John McCain defended Kerry as well.
2. Tony Snow stands up to David Gregory. Tony Snow told David Gregory he was asking politicized questions. It happens to be true. The press was actually squirming with their squealing over that one. Snow apologized. I don't know for sure, but I'd guess where the apology originated.
The "manhood problem" begins and ends with Bush. It's easy to stand up to armed enemies when you've got the US military on your side. It's not so easy when you have to actually take the lead and stick your neck out personally in Washington DC.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
since a quagmire was declared on day 72 in Iraq and since the bushlied meme that began a 24/7 run in early 2004, and yet, he has not wavered on the war, even after the 2006 election.
His reluctance to take on the dems is not a question of manhood. I wish he would take them on too, but he doesn't. He actually does take them on in the sense of defying their demands and understand rhetoric that they deem to be questioning their patriotism, but I can understand why, he, the one man responsible for leading the whole country.
No one can look at what this man has done under the conditions he has done them and question his manhood or courage or that he fears the MSM.
please get a grip bec
questioning Bush's manhood?
You should really take that back Beck. Do you question my manhood for not stating so more forcefully and calling you a name?
Catch Gamecock’s, first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column in the The Charlotte Observer. GC blogs at a Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report
The HinzSight Report
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
is like when the bully whacks you in the back of the head with a baseball bat, you wake up in the hospital still alive and mutter, "Guess I showed him, huh?"
OK, I won't question his manhood. I will question his judgment about his need to be nice to THOSE people. They are enemies of the State and he can either wake up and deal with them on that basis or write off anything good coming from Iraq. The bad guys over there only have to hang on probably another six months. Worst case for them is two years. I put up with my ex-wife longer than that. (But that's a whole nother story...)
He's standing up here at home? Pray tell GC, where is the DoJ in their investigations of the leaks of confidential information and programs? It's nowhere, that's where. They can't do anything because the "agencies" won't cooperate. Who do those "agencies" work for?
Sorry, GC. Bush is a flat out loser on this one.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
a cat, and given all that Bush has done right under the circumstances (hostile MSM and a nation of people with so many libs that dems control congress), and given the alternative to Bush and that he is our ONE and ONLY CINC now, in the midst of war that he refuses to lose, I refuse to attack him aggressively for what he doesn't do.
You do realize that I, GC, wrote a blog on RS two days ago criticizing Bush for asking for the Dems plan?
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2007/jan/14/memo_to_white_house_s...
But, Bush's positives FAR outweigh the negative. Who else but Bush, having seen the behavior of the dems and the GOP, would have taken the politically incorrect move in 2001-2 and rounded up all the overstayed muslim-arab visas? I even question if very many potential CINCs would have taken over Afghanistan, much less Iraq.
Mbecker, you are too hard on Bush. He needs support. His judgment on what more he needs to do may not rise to the level we prefer, but we are lucky to have a man that has done what he has done, and I am not convinced that we won't win his way and that his way may well be best in the long run as far as actually achieving an Iraq that will transform the ME, and by giving dems a chance to not be alienated utterly from their fellow Americans. Now that last phrase, I have great doubt in. I do think it would be a good thing to win over 65% of the country by harsh alienation exposure of the elites. But I may be wrong, and Bush is our leader in war, Now.
We hurt America when we further weaken Bush.
Bush, IS AMERICA, in many crucial and consequential ways, and its not like he's not waging war. He damn sure is against the enemy while taking hits from the enemy here. An enemy that gets to vote and that he is also president of.
So, I don't indulge, as Reagan did, in the temptation of pride to just throw my hands up and declare a pox on them all, even the best we have, and satisfy myself with a smugness of being right and I told you so's.
America is at war, and our team leader is our team leader. The only way we win is if HIS plan works. Let's give him the best chance of success for us all by supporting him.
See the below link
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/impressed_by_bushs_det...
Let me suggest something to you 'Beck. Don't you know that Bush now regrets the 18 month game at the UN that let Saddam hide his wmd and plan this insurgency? Don't you know that Bush now sees that their is no gain from telegraphing attacks since the Left will denounce anything he does.
Now, I suspect Becker, that if Bush were using rhetoric against Iran that you and I want to hear, you would criticize him for same? And that we wish that we would just wake up one day with Iran in flames?
Well, stay tuned. Bush meant what he said in the Axis of Evil speech. Don't judge him by what he hasn't yet done before his opportunity to do it is passed. Don't be a mere scoffer. See Proverbs.
God bless
That there is no "military solution" in Iraq, that there is only a "political solution." It's a uniquely duplicitous argument since it has been our position from the beginning that the political solution is the most important aspect of success.
But the political solution requires something that they won't countenance, even though they claim to support it: the stability for one to be brokered. They know that they're playing on the fatigue of the America people for this war (which is largely unjustified) and they know that their plan for a "political solution" means giving the criminals and murderers in Iraq a chance to execute a bloodbath on a scale that hasn't been seen since the darkest days of the American withdrawal from Vietnam.
The Democrats, in other words, wish for a "political solution" to emerge from the chaos of an unspeakably violent Iraq in which the vast majority of the peaceable population there has been abandoned by the United States and left to the whims of fate. The insurgents in Iraq represent no more than a few tenths of a percent of the population there. The foreign interlocutors, like Iran (with the tacit materiel support of Russia since the beginning of the conflict) have found in the American media a ready and eager voice of self-imposed defeat.
But the consequences for the United States, for the Iraqis, and for our friends in the region will be enormous. The Democrats know this. They realize that the United States will be slapped down and that Mahmoud A. will claim victory if the United States fails.
As I wrote in Jeff's thread yesterday, the American people need to start viewing this war realistically. If America is still involved in a low-intensity war in Iraq in 2017, it will have been worth it if we have achieved our objectives. We are not, as a country, being dragged down by this war -- that's something the media has created in people's imaginations. We could stay in Iraq until 2100 if we had the will to do so, without a whit of impact on our economy or our general well-being here. And if we leave now, we will abandon Iraq to the people who will truly unleash evil on the people who trusted us there.
Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here will be published Tuesday, The Day After Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
"There is no Tax solution to our deficit problem, there is only a Spending solution."
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
but I'm a glutton for punishment. I love arguing with lawyers. I need medication.
Anyway, let me first say that I generally support the President's position on Iraq. I don't like the RoE, but that's water over the dam. I am neither trying to or capable of undercutting him. And he absolutely is CinC, not me. And that's just one more thing we're all grateful for. I support his current plan for Iraq, I want it to succeed with every bone in my body. Plus a couple of calcified arteries that could pass as bones.
My issue in this whole thread is not with his current military plan in Iraq. It is with his perceived (by at least me) lack of a cogent plan to deal with the enemy on the home front. And we are just going to have to disagree about whether he's "fighting back" against them.
Example: Murtha said yesterday that the Congress is going to have to start micro-managing the DoD. I'm waiting for a response from either the WH or Gates. I don't expect one.
Example: The Democratic Leadership has been screeching for "more troops", etc for months. I think there was a blog here on the subject. Now they are screaming that they won't fund more troops and Bush has to beg them before sending the troops. I'm waiting for a response from the WH. I don't expect one.
With respect to the 18 month CF (Marine term) at the UN, I have no clue how he feels about it. Nor do I care. I'm more interested in what he might have learned from it, when taken in context with current efforts against Iran. I don't have a real high expectation here either.
With respect to rhetoric against Iran, I really don't thing he or any member of the Administration should be saying much of anything about Iran. Iran is a situation that should fly below the radar in both the media and Congress until we wake up some morning and discover that we've taken decisive military action against them in some form or another. Unfortunately, most of the surprise factor will be gone because we have to position assets, but nonetheless it's not a subject for public consumption. And certainly not one for debate or discussion with the idiots at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave.
And finally, I'm not scoffing. If anything, I see myself (which of course makes me right) as crying in the wilderness. Again, my dying horse is not Iraq, it's here at home.
Now I can say it... We'll see.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
an apology for the 36 months and counting of the Bushlied dem party, able to forgive the dem party. I consider their actions disgraceful and unpatriotic. I hate the dem party. I hate the sins of the dems while loving the sinner. I wish Bush would say to dems that the blood of American troops are on their hands for lying and calling him a liar. Bush should say that he can't imagine what paid al qaida against would say and do any differently that dems have done for 3 years. I don't even get to the recent congressmen's threats.
I do think its necessary that we that want stronger action make it known that so that Bush and the 08 nominees understand our frustration and hopefully act on it. I just think it needs to be done in such a way that doesn't undercut the good he is doing and has done. We really do need to not let the MSM paint the actual facts on the war in historic context in overblown negative turns. To do so also denigrates the historic work the troops have done and are doing and will complete given the time, even the way we have been.
more later brother
devine Law
The bottom line is if the status quo non confrontational new tone policy continues Bush will be blamed for the next terrorist attack the same way he was blamed for Katrina.
We will wake up one morning, or look at the TV in the break room to find thousands of dead Americans. The MSM and the rest of the Democrat Party will then launch into full attack mode blaming President Bush for not implementing all the 9/11 recommendations when he had the chance, distracting us in Iraq, making the terrorist more angry at us over the Iraq surge, being arrogant and incompetent, just like Katrina, Iraq and the rest.
The only debate they'll be having is if the President should be impeached for such failure. The MSM learned during Katrina and through the last four years of Iraq they can construct their own reality and move the independents in the polls at will. Unless the President confronts this reality and changes the status quo, it's only a matter of time. Even if it's three years after he leaves office they'll still successfully blame the guy that refuses to defend himself. It's not up to Congress, it's up to the President to use the bully pulpit. Clinton turned things on his political opponents, running it down their throats and rallying 60% of the country to his defense and the defense of the office in their minds. He didn't wait around for Gephart or Daschle to do it.
Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here will be published Tuesday, The Day After Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
While Bush may need support, he's done very little to deserve it. I get that you're a supporter, and he deserves some credit for TRYING to do something, but as CINC he's been pretty disastrous.
We're sick and tired of your liberal views, what's politically correct. Come Judgment Day, I'll be tying the noose and slipping it 'round your neck.
- Cock Sparrer
But when the President helps Sandy Berger cover up whatever he was hiding in those documents, when he makes Tony Snow apologize to David Gregory like he did, when he refuses to reply to lies and distortions with the facts, when he is silent as his secretary of state is slandered, when he actually condemns the efforts of the Swift Vets, when he does embarrassing self-parodies of his own intelligence, when he's afraid to tout the successes of his own economic program, he's no longer just being civil. Someone like Karl Rove needs to explain to him the difference between being civil and being obsequious. Standing there and just taking all that for six years without resistance, it's no wonder he's looking like he wants to be somewhere else.
1-Bush is a Harvard Business School CEO type that counts on the bottom line selling itself to shareholders
2-I really think that Tony Snow picked the wrong specific questions to jump on Gregory about and that Tony apologized because he was burdened by it
3-Do you think that these inside DC people have so much dirt on each other that it partially explains the Berger matter? I wonder
Catch Gamecock’s DeVine MSM debut in the The Charlotte Observer
Please keep this piece at the top of the page for a while if you can. This is the speech that Americans needed to hear. This is the explanation that I needed to hear from our President. It couldn't be more crucial for more people around the world who read RedState to read it, and think carefully about it -- especially some of our allies who have already gone wobbly or who are about to go wobbly.
Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here will be published Tuesday, The Day After Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
Your first link after the "Read on..." fold is flaky. Here's an alternate:
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
Enjoyed reading about the interview since I did not watch 60 minutes. I have a question that is off topic- it is regarding the Senator that is in the hospital. How long can a Senator be incapacitated (I know what many of you are thinking to yourself - that is the way many of them are most of the time.)before he/she is able to be replaced? Who makes that judgement call? Just curious on how long Sen. Tim Johnson, D-South Dakota can go on before there is serious talk about a replacement.
Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here will be published Tuesday, The Day After Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
if was officially dead.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
They pointed out a Republican Senator had a stroke and never showed up to the Senate again, just like Johnson is going to do. What they glossed over was the prior Senator was of sound mind, sound enough to demand the Democrat governor replace him with his wife as a condition of his resignation. The governor refused and he never showed, but that was an attendance issue not a incapacitated issue. But according to the press, it was the same thing. We've had prior Senators have strokes and no longer show.
Remember that the next time the press starts running interference again.
I thought that the President did well in the interview. He came off as thoughtful, concerned, and caring. He laid out many of the reasons why he continues to push forward with this war, which is far better than simply appealing to vague enemies and objectives.
I personally think that this was the kind of communication that this Administration has sorely lacked from Day 1. Their open hostility towards the media may or may not have been warranted but effectively sealed off the President's main method of communicating to the American people.
The President needs to follow up on this and continue to explain why we need to do this. Stay away from vague abstract concepts and speak to specifics.
Mark,
I would like to comment on this...
In contrast to the poll numbers, President Bush is a likeable man. He is a fundamentally decent person who views getting it right as his chief concern. Sometimes, this redounds to his detriment, as he tends to allow his critics free shots because he views trading punches as apart from that goal. His policies tend to suffer as a result. Even the most well crafted of policies by the most beloved of presidents would show cracks in the face of the onslaught that President Bush’s initiatives have received.
Do you really believe this? You think the reason his policies are criticized is because he is above the fray? All Presidential policies and initiatives will receive massive criticism. Comes with the job. Do you think that perhaps this Administration simply chose to ignore the criticisms and created their own troubles because of that?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
I believe that Bush considers it beneath the office to trade barbs with his critics. He will do it from time to time and during campaigns, but in the main, he tries to stay above the fray. I attribute this to his lack of concern for establishing a legacy. He said as much in the interview last night. Given the choice between getting the policy right and getting praised, I believe Bush would choose getting it right.
This is why, I believe, his policies are so often articulated and then not defended, so confident is the president in the decision and so uninterested is he in the opinions of official and unofficial Washington. This may or may not have been a conscious decision on his part, but nevertheless, it is clear that Bush doesn't care about his critics' criticisms. He cares foremost about arriving at the right answer according to his principles. This topic requires a longer post, however. Lucky for you, I'm working on one.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
Well I look forward to that diary.
I will simply say that I think you are portraying the President in a very unrealistic light. And I don't think the Office of the President is above criticism nor do I think that the Office of the President should ignore the critics. I'm not saying that he should be on the Chris Matthews show. But he most certainly should have created more cogent and coherent responses to the critics than this Administration did.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
It's true. His most egregious flaw in terms of public support so far has been his mediocrity as a public speaker. But there is a difference between the judgment of the speaker and the message that is being conveyed. And in those terms, on the basis of his policies in Iraq, he has been correct.
I've come to realize while watching his recent speeches that what most of the media has been looking for these past few years is the almost-universal "I'm Sorry" moment. It's almost an article of faith in liberaldom these days that anybody who is White, Male, and Republican needs to apologize, even when they're trying to do the right thing. It's just a fashion statement, Flyerhawk. It's a token of the times that has almost nothing to do with reality.
Certainly mistakes have been made in Iraq. Mistakes were made in World War II, and in Korea, and in Vietnam. I personally know a man who was a lieutantant in the infantry in WWII who accidentally instructed the soldiers under his command to blow up a chicken coop and a house in France because he was scared to death that they were all about to be ambushed. They lobbed a mortar into the house (luckily nobody was there) and blew the chicken coop to smithereens. But what we're confusing now, to our enormous error, is the admission that tactical mistakes have been made with the necessity to abandon our strategic objectives. They're not the same thing.
Certainly the President is never going to be viewed as a great orator. And I must admit that I consider that a significant flaw in a President. If you can't effectively communicate your message and beliefs how can you get people to sign on to that message?
I completely disagree with you regarding the debate swirling around Iraq. No one is criticizing the tactical in any meaningful way. They may point to tactical losses as evidence that the strategic is failing but the criticism is centered around a belief that the strategic goals in Iraq are unwinnable.
Your second paragraph reads like a "Poor Me" rant. If you think that only Republican leaders are expected to apologize I suspect you must have working in the middle of the Congo between 1998 and 2000.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Was a little too true. I know that since the beginning of this conflict the media meme has been that Bush Won't Admit Mistakes. That's been true since the days of the initial invasion, when Peter Arnett was calling our impending victory against Saddam's forces a failure and had to decamp for Parts Europe as a result.
The New York Times published perhaps the seminal editorial on the war a few days later, highlighting our failure to find the large caches of WMDs that we expected to see. But I'll also note that I was listening to NPR on the morning American forces first rolled into Baghdad and they, too, were expecting that we'd find them.
The amazing thing is that when it comes to tactical vs. strategic I think you really have it backward. You lose a strategic war when your armies are defeated, when your homeland is invaded and subdued, and your objectives have been completely crushed by the overwhelming force of the enemy. Nothing of the kind is happening in Iraq to the United States. There have been, just as the President said, tactical blunders and missteps along the way, but it's also very difficult to argue that the United States under this Administration has not consciously sought a "political solution" there. Did you miss the State of the Union Address? Have you forgotten about the 12 million Iraqi voters? Do you realize that Paul Bremer left the country entirely and gave the government the keys to the realm almost instantaneously (I think he did it too quickly!).
The problem that we're facing is a lack of will here in the United States. We're not facing an economic debacle over the Iraq war. We're really not even facing a military debacle over the war -- because if we genuinely had to we could mobilize. We've lost only a tiny number of soldiers and materiel in Iraq in comparison to past conflicts of similiar scale because our armed forces are so competent and well-equipped. And most of the soldiers -- even the wounded ones at Walter Reed -- believe in the mission and want to finish the job.
So who are the people calling for the withdrawal and the abandonment of our strategic objectives based on things they have simply confabulated out of thin air?
Was a little too true. I know that since the beginning of this conflict the media meme has been that Bush Won't Admit Mistakes. That's been true since the days of the initial invasion, when Peter Arnett was calling our impending victory against Saddam's forces a failure and had to decamp for Parts Europe as a result.
The New York Times published perhaps the seminal editorial on the war a few days later, highlighting our failure to find the large caches of WMDs that we expected to see. But I'll also note that I was listening to NPR on the morning American forces first rolled into Baghdad and they, too, were expecting that we'd find them.
I really have no idea what this is supposed to prove. So Arnett said dumb things to an Iraqi reporter. How does that support your claim that the President needs to apologize?
You lose a strategic war when your armies are defeated, when your homeland is invaded and subdued, and your objectives have been completely crushed by the overwhelming force of the enemy. Nothing of the kind is happening in Iraq to the United States. There have been, just as the President said, tactical blunders and missteps along the way, but it's also very difficult to argue that the United States under this Administration has not consciously sought a "political solution" there. Did you miss the State of the Union Address? Have you forgotten about the 12 million Iraqi voters? Do you realize that Paul Bremer left the country entirely and gave the government the keys to the realm almost instantaneously (I think he did it too quickly!).
Well there is not much chance of Iraq invading the United States. So I guess there is no way we can lose this war, huh?
Invading a country and ousting their leader without consideration of post-war governing is not simply a tactical error.
The problem that we're facing is a lack of will here in the United States. We're not facing an economic debacle over the Iraq war. We're really not even facing a military debacle over the war -- because if we genuinely had to we could mobilize. We've lost only a tiny number of soldiers and materiel in Iraq in comparison to past conflicts of similiar scale because our armed forces are so competent and well-equipped. And most of the soldiers -- even the wounded ones at Walter Reed -- believe in the mission and want to finish the job.
You're absolutely correct. The problem is a matter of a lack of will in the United States. You wish to blame this on the Media, the Democrats, or the wimpy American people. You seem unwilling to consider that perhaps the problem was that the President never properly explained to the American people why we need to stay in Iraq.
No matter what else is true, ultimately the buck stops at the Oval Office on foreign policy matters and if the White House doesn't get popular support for their actions, they are doomed to failure.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
I could not agree more with these statements:
You seem unwilling to consider that perhaps the problem was that the President never properly explained to the American people why we need to stay in Iraq.
No matter what else is true, ultimately the buck stops at the Oval Office on foreign policy matters and if the White House doesn't get popular support for their actions, they are doomed to failure.
Thank you.
are you one of those that needed explaining?...Same question to you Flyerhawk...cause I can tell you what I think of people that needed to have that explained to them
I understood the reason why we went into Iraq before we ever went in. And I opposed it then. We're there now so we have to do what is best now.
And while you can be contemptuous of the average American who doesn't read blogs or study Middle Eastern politics, the reality is that most Americans DON'T pay that much attention to details. And this holds true of many of the people who SUPPORT the President simply because of the letter at the end of his name.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
I'm asking that in complete good faith. I want to know what you think the reason(s) we went into Iraq were.
most have their heads up their butts. This isn't about reading blogs or being in tune ME politics(though it helps)...it's about knowing what is going on in the world..day to day. with that hopefully comes smarts about specific situations, and not just screaming because others are doing the same thing.
yes, I have contempt for fellow citizens that have no freaking idea what is going on, and cry and moan because someone didn't explain this, or that to them....and yes.....both sides of the aisle
at the time it was being debated and when it commenced. I did so on the basis (which I think Tony Blair did the best job of articulating at the time) that, post 9/11, it was necessary for civilized countries to enforce resolutions like the ones aimed at Iraq by the U.N. -- even if the U.N. couldn't muster the courage to do so itself.
I further had the misplaced confidence that President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld had studied the situation and learned enough from history to make a success of the enterprise. Sadly, I have discovered I was wrong -- they did not know what they were doing. And the worst part of that discovery, leaving all strategic and tactical mistakes in the dust (so to speak), is that George W. Bush is a painfully inept leader, a man who lacks the talent and the work ethic necessary to rally the nation's support during wartime. And what may be even worse is that I suspect it is too late for him to do anything about these deficiencies during the remainder of his presidency. It is for this reason I have reluctantly concluded we have no option but to declare victory and get out of there.
would be best...safest route, right?....Just cr@p, my friend. Or is it because there can be comfort in the fact that so many are crying for the same thing?...I read this type of stuff and just laugh....nope, thanks for your input...I will trust those in charge and the men on the ground to tell me how the war is progressing.
from William F. Buckley, who, as we all know, is in the habit of taking "comfort in the fact that so many are crying for the same thing."
My favorite quote from Buckley's piece (boldface added):
Is our Iraqi enterprise worth a corporate commitment by America?
That is the taxing question. If success in Iraq would bring an end to the movement of which Iraq is now the apex, the answer would clearly be yes. Has the president persuasively argued that it would do so? No. He has said that "failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States." He hasn't said why. Great countries do lose great engagements. We did in Vietnam and Korea, and the Soviets did in Afghanistan.
from Peggy Noonan:
Right now, in the deepest levels of the American government, intelligence and military planners should be ordered to draw up serious plans for an American withdrawal, and serious strategies for dealing with the realities withdrawal will bring. It would not be the worst thing if the Maliki government knew those plans were being drawn up. It might concentrate the mind.
What is paramount is a hard, cold-eyed and even brutal look at America's interests. We have them. I'm not sure they've been given sufficient attention the past few years. In fact, I am sorry to say I believe they have not.
And a member of the Loyal Opposition, so I'll try not to be too bruising here. But you really don't get the point.
Well there is not much chance of Iraq invading the United States. So I guess there is no way we can lose this war, huh?
The only way America can lose this war is if we decide to lose it. It's sitting there, in the palm of our hands, despite all the things Robert Kaiser believes, and abandoning the Iraqi people should never be an option for us. We promised them that we would stay until the job was complete. Right now, there is neither the reason to think the job is complete nor to think that we can't help them finish it. The latter half of the doubt is the smokescreen that too many people in this country have been duped into believing.
In one sense, Colin Powell was right about this war: "We bought it, we own it." But the amazing thing is that it is really not proving to be an obligation we can't pay. We are fooling ourselves if we think we can't, because we could certainly stay in Iraq for another 10 years at the current level of expenditure if we wished. And here in America we would continue to thrive even if we decided to do so.
....it is really not a conflict that we can't manage. It may take some more time, but that sacrifice is worth it to us. At least it's worth it to me.
The only way America can lose this war is if we decide to lose it. It's sitting there, in the palm of our hands, despite all the things Robert Kaiser believes, and abandoning the Iraqi people should never be an option for us. We promised them that we would stay until the job was complete. Right now, there is neither the reason to think the job is complete nor to think that we can't help them finish it. The latter half of the doubt is the smokescreen that too many people in this country have been duped into believing.
Certainly we will never lose this war if we don't leave Iraq. But that doesn't mean we will win it either.
But that is tangential to the point. The bigger question is what is winning and what is losing? If Al-Sadr gains in prominence and becomes Prime Minister or President and says that we should leave, does that mean we won or lost? If we are in largely the same situation in 2 years as we are today, what then? These are 2 very real possibilities that should be addressed now so that the American people understand what's going on.
Should the American people simply accept an open ended engagement in which our soldiers are dying for a people who seem, at best, ambivalent towards our presence there?
This Administration failed because they were too busy trying to make it seem that things were always going well. Dick Cheney would break out the pom-poms and try and tell us how we were on the cusp of victory repeatedly. And everytime things got worse the American people became less supportive of the war.
You wish to blame the Media and the Democrats for these failings. That's your right. But, as I said, the responsibility for the execution of this war and keeping Americans supportive of it rests with the Administration.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
bringing a thug to justice that thumbed his nose to U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution for ten years while reneging on his conditional surrender.
one less murderer in the world that murders the innocent by the thousands.
a free and stable Iraq that is no longer a threat to the region or the world.
America exercising its will in the region and not the Iranians or Syrians.
Not complicated, unless you're a liberal that believes the way to win a debate is through the technicalities of highly complicated arguments.
Well I'm pretty certain that your first point, the most clearly defined from the outset, has been achieved.
A free and stable Iraq that is no longer a threat to the region or the world? And what Muslims nations can be described as such currently? So you wish to create Iraq in the likeness of America. Ok. Do you realize the massive cultural and logistical difficulties in doing so?
America exercising its will in the region and not the Iranians or Syrians.
Oh. So victory will be defined as continued American hegemony in the Middle East? While I certainly agree that this is a critical point of the entire war, I rarely see Conservatives openly advocate for dominion of a foreign region.
Not complicated, unless you're a liberal that believes the way to win a debate is through the technicalities of highly complicated arguments.
You're right. It is a very simple debate. Either you accept the grand view that has been proffered by the Administration or you are some sort of
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
exercise hegemony in the region? Iran? Russia? China?
If we leave somebody will step in to fill the vacuum.
that we leave the region. But I also believe that our(and I mean the West in this context) treatment of the Middle East as a resource colony has been a significant cause of the problem.
My bigger problem with Buckeye's comments are that they are contradictory. He says he wants a free Iraq but then he says he wants the US to be able to dictate its will to the region. So which is it? A free state or a client state of the United States that will not interfere with our wishes, ala Saudi Arabia?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
You wish to blame the Media and the Democrats for these failings. That's your right. But, as I said, the responsibility for the execution of this war and keeping Americans supportive of it rests with the Administration.
Exactly.
FH: For you and others that are convinced of the President's poor communication skills I would like to remind you of this little gem:
"I hear you, the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down are going to hear from all of us soon".
Can anyone here recall a more eloquent, meaningful and inspiring (unscripted by the way) statement by Bill (the supposedly gifted speaker)
Clinton?
The President may not have Reagan's skills in front of the camera; however he does have other gifts that more than make up for this.
People that meet with him generally come away very impressed with his communication skills. He is described as sincere, convincing, direct and honest.
That's my nickel (more than two cents but probably not worth a dime)
But those who trust in the Lord will find new strength.They will soar high on wings like eagles.They will run and not grow weary.They will walk and not faint. Is 40:31
So you reference a comment made 5 years ago during one of the most emotional times in our history. Sure that was a inspirational moment.
But what has he done since? I don't much care if the guy is the most charming person I will never meet in private. A President must be able to communicate his message, in some manner.
And whether the President has other gifts or not is completely irrelevant to the discussion. I am NOT talking about whether the President is a good or bad President. I am talking SPECIFICALLY about his communicating his message to the American people.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
It's not just the lib media that want apologies, the public clamors for them, too. Pres. Reagan gave them what they wanted in 1987 (apologized for arms for hostages) and went on to renewed popularity and a highly successful presidency. I'm not suggesting Bush do the same thing--the circumstances are very different--but it has amazing power in our current culture.
Catch Gamecock’s DeVine MSM debut in the The Charlotte Observer
...most of the time, anyway. There's nothing wrong with GWB choosing to trade a few barbs with the press. Likewise with Congressional opponents. But rebuffing the criticism is the primary role of Tony Snow, the cabinet, the party loyalists, etc., that surround the President.
The Office of the President is a Pretty Big Deal, and the occupant should act like it. For example, Reagan always wore coat & tie in the Oval Office. Symbolism is important.
In no way is the President above criticism.
I'm not suggesting that the President needs to debate with critics on their terms. Most certainly not. But the White House seemed content to simply say the same thing over and over and never addressed the criticisms that were being lobbed at him.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
I wish he would hire carville to form a war room
Catch Gamecock’s DeVine MSM debut in the The Charlotte Observer
But the White House ... never addressed the criticisms that were being lobbed at him.
If a rabid monkey is hurling its own feces at you, do you address the monkey's diet or its state of mind? No, you get out of range or disable the monkey or block it somehow. That should be the responsibility of his fellow Republicans in Congress, but they've been laying down on the job, which is part of the reason they're now in the minority.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
If you wish to refer to Democrats as monkeys, that's your choice.
As I said before I'm not suggesting that the President get into mudslinging events. But he also needs to ensure that people understand his policies, otherwise people will accept the critics views on face value.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
You know that I did not say that the office of president is above criticism, flyerhawk. What I did say is that the current occupant of the office, for the most part, believes it to be beneath the office to trade barbs with his critics.
As to his administration's coming up with more cogent answers to his critics, I don't think it is a given that they haven't. The Administration's answers may not have always been convincing to its critics, however, they haven't always been reported very fairly, either. And when an Administration's critics are the self-appointed arbiters of what is convincing or not, the Administration carries a heavier burden. All of which lends support to my position that Bush emphasizes getting the policy right, over convincing the critics.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
I think we are arguing semantics so I'll drop the point on the Administration trading barbs/responding to critics.
So you think that the White House has delivered a compelling and cogent argument for why we need to stay in Iraq but the media isn't letting it get to the people?
I consider myself fairly connected and I have to admit that I have seen far more compelling arguments from this administration in the past 2 months than they ever offered prior.
Perhaps the Administration never felt the need to offer compelling arguments since the Republicans controlled Congress. If so, then they are guilty of hubris, a common flaw in Presidents.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
many of which simply aren't reported. Oh, they report the event, but not the arguments. Rather, they focus on some obscure sentence that fits their action line and that advances their agenda.
Bush has not been aggressive enough, but the argument was compellingly made in the Axis if Evil speech and often since. So compellingly that he got a UN resolution, a congressional approval that included most dems and won re-election before Iraq's 2 elections.
The problem is that when the going gets tough, the dems whine like children and the MSM too.
But, this is a tougher sell than WWII, esp when the Media and Dems say things that al qaida would pay to have them say.
Its also tougher when so many repubs play armchair QBs on sunday and get invited only of they will criticize the CINC and accept some known facts.
Graham is doing better i must say
more later
Catch Gamecock’s DeVine MSM debut in the The Charlotte Observer
Remember how critics of Harriet Miers' nomination were called "sexist"? Remember how he chided conservatives who question Alberto Gonzalez's suitability for a Supreme Court nomination? Why does he only stay above the fray with those who are out to destroy him?
That is, to immediately defend other s before himself. The problem is, that the criticism of him on this war is more that just criticism of him that, if it were just personal, the turn the other cheek principle might apply. But the criticisms of him in this context also undermines the defense of the nation. I think it is his duty to better defend himself esp with troops in the field. i think he has to do so in a careful way, but in one sense,
I AGREE WITH BECKER 100%
Catch Gamecock’s DeVine MSM debut in the The Charlotte Observer on The Day After Martin Luther King Day. Now also Legal Editor for The HinzSight Report and aware that “One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson, GC also blogs at a Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report.
That explanation still doesn't quite cut it for me. He is actually loathe to defend his friends when they are attacked by his enemies. His own Secretary of State was viciously attacked last week, and not a peep from the White House defending her. It seems that he's only willing to defend others when they are every-so-respectfully criticized by his friends, while he remains mute when they are viciously attacked by his enemies.
given the premise of the attack!
but you make good points
Catch Gamecock’s DeVine MSM debut in the The Charlotte Observer
Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here will be published Tuesday, The Day After Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
-T. Roosevelt, April 23, 1910
I sometimes think Bush struggles at times with communicating his positions, and other times does well-this was I think a better time.
I think one issue I am coming to realize is that the only real plan the democrats seem to have is whateveris in opposition to Bush's plan. I also think their "there are no military solutions, only politcal ones" is lame. What political solution is there that will clean up the insurgents?
How do you even negotiate with people who want to see you dead and/or see you fail?
are enemies of the state, then what mbecker908 is really describing is civil war within the U.S. If he's serious about this, then he should be willing to take arms and go on the streets, or at least organize it. If he's not willing to do that, then...how much of a patriot can he really be?
Don't mean to be a spoil sport, but you've gotta back up language like this if you're going to use it.
But I take my lead from my Constitutional leaders. A concept I'm pretty sure you wouldn't understand.
And you can take you attitude and shove it. If you're ever in Phoenix, I'm easy to find. You won't like the experience. But it will be memorable for you.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
I'm just an old guy with a computer. Who can structure an argument that doesn't rely on the newest rendition of "chickenhawking". Just maybe I'd like to sit across a table from you and watch you fold while you try to make an in-person argument.
Which, by the way, you are obviously incapable of. You would not be a victim of the probability that I'm better armed than you are, you would be a victim of, more than likely, inbreeding.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
so I'm an inbred, huh? I take it back, you might be a more formidable debater than I thought!
Actually, I go to Phoenix often to visit my mother. As most of my family is as rightist as you, I'm pretty sure I can handle things as far as you are concerned. My mom lives in Fountain Hills, which isn't at all suitable for this kind of thing.
Pick your favorite saloon, something rustic let's say, and let's have at it next time I'm in town!
crackdown risks extradition.
Catch Gamecock’s DeVine MSM debut in the The Charlotte Observer.
an unfair fight.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
for the bout. Lawyers automatically qualify. I have a mailing address and mail box that large enough to hold an envelope with a retainer check inside, so feel free...
Catch Gamecock’s DeVine MSM debut in the The Charlotte Observer.
if Yogi never said it he should had!
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
I don't drink so if you want pitchers that's ok, I'll stick to water. If it was pistols an outfit wouldn't help.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
To get back to the thrust of the thread, it seems obvious to some, and incomprehensible to others, that the "Iraq War" is just a significant local conflict in the greater War against Islamofascism. The idology of the enemy is attractive to a multitude, just as was Communism. However, like Communism, the ideology cripples their economy, and the resulting politics is little more than tribalism, weaker by far than the international thrust of the USSR. Their one strength is oil, and if it were cut off tomorrow Western economies would adjust and cope, the Islamist states would revert to barbarism.
The West didn't win in Korea, and the Cold War continued another 15 years. We lost in Vietnam and it went on 15 more years. When we had a president who thought the end of the Cold War was "We win, they lose!" he made it so. We could lose the battle in Iraq and survive. But we could win and significantly shorten the struggle to marginalize the Islamists. I'm pulling for a shorter struggle so we'll have time to prepare to deal with China.
The West didn't win in Korea, and the Cold War continued another 15 years. We lost in Vietnam and it went on 15 more years.
How was the Cold War continued because of the Korean War? Or by Vietnam for that matter? You think that if North Korea or North Vietnam toppled the Soviets would have just given up?
And you do realize that 2 largest Muslim nations in the world are not significant oil producing nations, right? And they aren't Arab.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
The largest Muslim country is Indonesia, a primary source of oil for the Orient. I guess the next largest is Pakistan or Bangladesh, but Iran is not Arab either. And your point is?
One is entitled to play what-if games with history. Would you agree that a reunification of Korea and a crushing military defeat of China MIGHT have enhanced the global stature of the US, it's Allies and the then-Western-dominated UN more than the humiliating stalemate actually signed on formerly South Korean land?
correctly explaining so many important aspects of President Bush's leadership and how he gets it on the GWOT as well as anyone and how we can trust him to never waver in this war. We should all get on our knees and thank God he is President and for all the lives that have been and will be saved due to his unwillingness to give up.
Catch Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here on Tuesday in The Charlotte Observer. GC blogs at a Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report
The HinzSight Report
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson