Redstate

Unfortunately I find that GWB is not unlike most republicans in this regard.  While the MSM does have a hold on the primary manner in which people receive their news it does not excuse the lack of communication directly from the White House.  GWB needs to take to the airways in a prime time speech, interrupting our sit coms and reruns.  He needs to detail the reasons for the war in Iraq.

I do think that we need to discuss again those reasons.  I think so because it is the basis for why we need to stay there and finish the job.  People need to see the President doing his job.  If he is doing his job (which he is) he will still fail the American people if he does not show us that he is doing it.  

I have posted a little before about this lack of communication.  The American people are willing to follow GWB.  He needs to show us (again) what the goal is, why it is important, and how we can help.  It is vitally important that Americans invest themselves in this War.  Perhaps not investing militarily but more than just a lapel pin.  

GWB has been a good communicator.  He can get convey his goals and messages to us in a manner which allows us to understand the need for the goal and will allow us to adopt that goal as our own.  We are a government for the people by the people.  But if we don't know why our government is doing something we cannot do our job of self-governing.   Mr. Bush, we are ready for your leadership, are you ready to lead once again?

Ok maybe that was a by crass, but here's my point.

It's just not "him" to have to explain himself to anyone.  I don't see it as arrogant and I doubt he intends it to be.  It's just CEO style leadership.  He runs the country like a CEO.  CEO's don't defend their decisions to their employees.  They make a decision and move forward.

Not saying "right or wrong" just saying that's how it is with GWB.

I think deep down he believe history will prove him right.

From a practical poitical standpoint there is the old addage in politics.... "if you're playing defense.... you're losing"

This is easy for me to say, since as a Democrat I have no investment in George W. Bush.  The comments about withdrawal from Feingold, Hagel, etc. are filling a vacuum left by a lack of leadership from George W. Bush.  If you ask ordinary people what we are doing there, most don't know.  Do we even know?  What is our objective?  When will we have won?  What is the strategy for getting us to victory (and no, "stay the course" doesn't count)?

The Commander-in-Chief is the one who should be setting a strategy for Iraq, but lacking that, others have begun an exercise of pushing on a rope to try to influence what we do in Iraq.  It's not a matter of communication - it is a matter of having a plan which could reasonably lead to something we define as "success".  If Congress believes Bush reaches Queeglike detachment at some point, they could use the blunt instrument of cutting off funding for the war, but that is obviously not the ideal solution.

I know this discussion may not be a comfortable one for those who have supported the war and the president, but I think our troops deserve a national discussion and resolution of exactly what it is they are trying to accomplish, and how they will do so.

for President Bush is that he simply can't come out and say the truth.  In some regards he is caught in a situation similar to what Clinton was caught in with Monicagate.  If he answers truthfully his enemies would use that against him to show that he lied to the American people, whether that is the truth or not.  

The President needs to stand up and say "Whatever the reasons we got here it is imperative to our nation that we not fail now.  He show some humility and take responsibility, at least some responsibility, for getting us to this point. Tell the country that every decision he has made has been to defend America from those who wish to destroy our country.  Perhaps some of those decisions were not the right choices.  But it is time to focus on the problems of today and what failure would mean to our country.  

Of course this is not going to happen.  If the President has a fatal flaw it is hubris.  And it is this flaw that is limiting his choices.  

Perhaps something like this....

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan - to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

This is still a democracy. Lyndon Johnson won a lot bigger than Bush and four years later could not put his head out in public. This is not to make equivalent Bush and Johnson but to point out that public opinion can change with significant impact on policy.

Don't tell a salesman that it is "defensive" to trumpet the advantages of the product in order to increase sales, and inspire positive word of mouth. By discouraging supporters like docj he is killing his word of mouth, the best support he has. Bush does not have a program to build his support with the American people so that he appears stronger when dealing abroad.

The terrorists cannot hope to win, even with nuclear weapons. But we can defeat ourselves, just by going into a Vietnam syndrome, just as the left and the press (but I repeat myself) wish. Bush is doing nothing to stop them and this failure to lead, to demonstrate leadership, may well ending up costing him the good opinion of history regardless of how it evaluates his policy. He better figure this out.

GWB has never worried much about polls. He also doesn't seem to be burdened by the weight of his decisions. Have you noticed how presidents, especially war time presidents, seem to age very fast? The extreme stress these men must endure every day takes a horrible toll on their health. GWB seems to be an exception to this. The man looks as good as he did when he first went into office. He works out a lot, and he certainly doesn't seem to be loosing too much sleep over anything. I guess that's a result of living a balanced life.

While I would argue that Bush has consistently taken responsibility for Iraq, has consistently said that the mission now is an independent and secure Iraq, has at least once said that we have learned that WMDs were not where we thought or at the level that we thought, and has at least once said that while we have not been perfect in implementation of the war, we have to continue to push ahead for a secure Iraq.  

But I would also agree that he has not done it frequently enough or consistently enough and the media refuse to cover it because 'its not news' or he's not saying anything new.  I don't want an update every week from the President, but a reminder of why our soldiers are doing what they are doing would be useful.  I'm optimistic that the WH is planning on doing something about this in September when the majority of the country starts paying attention to the news again.

But there is one large Known Fact in your post that needs to be cleaned up.  Bush didn't lie about the reasons for going to war.  And he hasn't lied about anything involving the conduct of the war as far as I know.  I would, of course, be willing to be educated with links from anyone besides MoDo, Paul Krugman, and DKos.

We went in for a large variety of reasons, ranging from WMD to failure to abide to UN resolutions, to humanitarian reasons.  Bush did not lie about any of these reasons.

Now, have we learned that the CIA and British Intelligence (not to mention French, Spanish, Russian, German, and Israeli) were unequivocally wrong about the presence of WMD?  For the most part, yes.  They were wrong.

But being wrong about a fact does not make you a liar.  It makes you wrong.  There is a massive difference.

Without delving too deep into your example, Clinton knew, uncontrovertably, that he was not telling the truth.  He knew that he had, in fact, had sexual relations with that woman.  He said that he didn't, thus he lied.  Bill Clinton was a liar.  Period.

Bush knew, as did Blair, as did Chirac, as did Putin, as did Aznar, as did Biden and Kerry and Clinton (both) as did McCain as did Hagel as did every member who voted for the resolutions authorizing the use of force, that all the evidence in the world indicated that Saddam Hussein had WMD, refused to let inspectors in free and unfettered, and that he had abused his own people and tried to conduct genocide on the Kurds.

We have subsequently found out that much of the WMD evidence was not true.  But that is not a lie., no matter how you may wish it to be true  George Bush was wrong, he was not a liar.

You may notice I did not accuse the President of lying.  I said that his ENEMIES would use those comments to accuse the President of lying.  I thought that my conditional "whether that is the truth or not" was clear enough to indicate I wasn't making any accusations.

Now if I WERE to make an accusaion of deception it would be that the Bush Administration certainly did not publicly state their PRIMARY reasons for going into Iraq.  The WMD argument was a presentation.  It was this Administration's "Remember the Maine" rallying cry.  That's not to say that they were lying about whether they believed that Iraq had WMDs.  IMO, had they really thought he didn't have WMDs they wouldn't have used that pretense since they would have realized it could come back to haunt them later.  But I don't believe, and didn't back then, that they really much cared about Iraq possessing non-nuclear WMDs.

Iraq was the first piece to implementing their New World Order.  Problem is that they never mentioned it and, truth be told, they never could politically.

He just spent a year defending himself, re-asserting his goals, and got re-elected for his trouble.

It's not his job to answer every liberal whiner.

What's a political party for, if not to step up and do the political dirty work the President can't do?

If Republican messages aren't getting out, isn't that the fault of the RNC chairman?

however, I think you are wrong to say the MSM only wants to report the bad news and cover up the good.  The MSM has, generally, tried to report the Iraq War in an honest way (obsessing on the exceptions to that does not change the fact).  The public opinion polls started dropping rather suddenly IMO, not because of the MSM, but because the situation doesn't seem to be concretely, objectively, better than it was a year ago.

For all the complaining about the MSM, they want the U.S. to succeed in Iraq.  They will give Americans news on Iraq, both good and bad, as they can get it.  Though it must be noted, it's extremely dangerous to be a reporter in Iraq and your movement is fairly limited.

As far as Sheehan is concerned, the MSM is reporting on her because it provides drama which draws viewers.  It's the same reason they choose to report on one missing, white woman in Aruba.  Drama.  Not partisanship.

He reminds me of the way men used to be raised to behave.

Personally, I don't see where he gains anything by acknowledging the criticism from the left and loses a lot of stature.

He's not standing for re-election so public opinion polls are pretty much background noise. In 2008, the next Republican presidential wannabe will run as the anti-Bush if things aren't going well or as Bush III if things are.

I do not think that the MSM wants us to succeed in Iraq.  Using your own argument an American loss in the central arena of the War on Terror would provide much more drama than a victory.  

While I do not believe the media, MSM or otherwise, should turn an uncritical eye to the government's actions I do think that it should support the United States.  Truth is power and ever American should want the United States to be as powerful as possible.  The better to protect our rights.  Rights like the freedom to bash a great president like GWB.

Our troops killed?  It's own reporters murdered?

I don't.  They'll surely report those things if they happen, but I don't believe that's what the MSM wants.  At the end of the day, the MSM is made up of Americans who probably hate that they have to cover things like a missing white woman in Aruba to get ratings.  They'll report it, because ratings dictate survival, but that doesn't mean they enjoy it or 'want' it.

and they'll twist anything to make it so

no to B. Of course they don't want reporters hurt. It runs up their overhead.

their reporters killed.  I am not saying that they do.  I am saying that the people currently in the MSM seem to look for the negative, celebrate conservative and American misfortune, and deplore what this country stands for.

When did Hughes leave? Around the Iraq War?

And wasn't that the time in which Bush essentially just STOPPED communicating on a regular basis? It's very weird.

ONE possible explanation, is that Bush has various secret intelligence driving his conduct, analagous to Truman's reading the "Magic" intercepts and analysis during WWII. There's no way Bush can say things about what he knows is true (a hypothetical: that Pakistan's ISI and bin Laden are heavily conspiring to overthrow Musharref, seize control of the nukes, and attack the US with them, US policy is designed to isolate the ISI within Pakistan's power structure) without revealing the sources of America's technical intelligence collection.

One thing stands out: The US has always had EXCELLENT technical intelligence since WWII. It has had awful human intelligence and sometimes interpretation (like the view that the Chinese would not cross the Yalu River during October 1950).

Secret intelligence perhaps that Clinton also shared? It would explain the otherwise bizarre love-fest that Bill and George share, extended even to Bush Senior.

Harry Truman also basically stopped explaining his decision to drop the Atomic Bombs on Japan, simply because to do so would have revealed to the world that the US was reading in real-time encrypted radio communications from Japan and everyone else, including the Soviets. Some secrets are worth protecting.

It is possible that the corrosive effect of secret knowledge (let's be realistic, the Able Danger episode alone should point out the awe-inspiring technical abilities of US intelligence, akin to Howard Hughes Glomar Explorer raising a sunken Soviet Sub) has made Bush (and Rumsfeld and Cheney) simply uninterested in speaking clearly to the American People at what is at stake, and the true nature of the conflict.

Note that Hillary, Feinstein, Bayh and a few other generally pro-war Dems who sit on Armed Services or Intelligence committees where oversight would entail some classified briefings seem a lot different than their counterparts. The Difference between Feinstein and Pelosi/Boxer may simply be what Feinstein knows.

I'm not saying this is the case, but for some strange reason Bush fairly early on decided that communication was not important, Karen Hughes LEFT (and has never been replaced), and the Media has been pretty hostile as a result of not being fed ever since.

The Media? I do believe there was an inflection point, at which time around Hughes departure the Media was guaranteed to be hostile. That's the case now (and it's likely that NO message from the Bush White House would be heard through the Media Filter). But ... I keep asking myself why did Hughes, a longtime confidant of Bush, leave, and her function never replaced?

he set a course laid out a vision (once) and told everyone to get out of the way.....

bottom line... They're cowboys... and I love it.

But, New World Order? I'm not up to speed with the latest conspiracy theories from the left.

... however, I think you are wrong to say the MSM only wants to report the bad news and cover up the good.  The MSM has, generally, tried to report the Iraq War in an honest way (obsessing on the exceptions to that does not change the fact).

I will accept that the MSM has not created lies on very many occasions. I guess that qualifies as honest, or at least not too dishonest.

The public opinion polls started dropping rather suddenly IMO, not because of the MSM, but because the situation doesn't seem to be concretely, objectively, better than it was a year ago.

Just about everything the average American knows about the situation in Iraq is what they see on network news and read in their newspaper. The audience for even cable TV news is tiny compared to network news and the number of people who spend time on the blogs is almost microscopic compared to TV and newspapers. If people are told that things are a disaster often enough what else are they to know?

For all the complaining about the MSM, they want the U.S. to succeed in Iraq.

I am among a sizeable number of people who do not believe this is true. The people running the press today came from two schools: Vietnam, where they were successful in creating a disaster; Watergate, where they were successful in bringing down a president. The press may not want us to lose in Iraq, but they certainly do not want us to win. The modern press wants to adopt a position as a neutral observer, supposedly reporting "just the facts" without a national bias. I guess they figure the bad guys will keep the free press if they win.

They will give Americans news on Iraq, both good and bad, as they can get it.  Though it must be noted, it's extremely dangerous to be a reporter in Iraq and your movement is fairly limited.

There is nothing physical or procedural preventing reporters from getting "embedded" with coalition troops if they want to get out the bar at the Palestine Hotel. There is little evidence that there is any interest on their part in doing so; it's a lot easier to sit at the bar and all report the same "bad news" than it is to go get both sides of the story.

As far as Sheehan is concerned, the MSM is reporting on her because it provides drama which draws viewers.  It's the same reason they choose to report on one missing, white woman in Aruba.  Drama.  Not partisanship.

A part of their fascination with Sheehan is sensationalism, but only a part. As recently as this week Paul Krugman at the NYT is still trying to convince people that Bush lost Florida in 2000 by "misstating" the results of the various post-election press-sponsored "recounts."

I have a very hard time accepting that the American press is "neutral", or that they "report honestly" or that they "want us to succeed in Iraq."

when you demonize those you disagree with.

The worst side of Conservatives is when they think they have a monopoly on patriotism and love of country.

Democracy to the Middle East?  The end of Islamic extremsism?  Western ideals instill in the Middle East?  

You don't think that these are objectives of this Administration?  You don't think these were objectives from Day 1?

At the core of every liberal is, nothing. That is why liberals embrace moral relevancy. They have no core values to test against, consequently, they have to compare everything to what someone else has done or is doing. They cannot accept blame or responsibility for their actions or decisions, consequently they are not able to blame or hold others responsible for a lack of moral values. Hence, abortions ok, Clinton/Monica ok, Ted Kennedy drowning Mary Jo ok, etc. To be a true Patriot, you have to be willing to step-up and defend this Country. This Country was founded on some very strong core values most of which are based in Judeo/Christian traditions. In that liberals don't have these, they fight to eliminate any public reference to them and they are certainly not willing to pay the price to maintain them. Consequently, you get statements like "No one should have to die in a war" or "this Country is not worth dying for". Face it. If our military only was comprised of liberals, we would be... France. So, if we can't trust liberals to defend our way of life, by force if necessary, why can should we consider them patriotic?

You know, this idea comes up a lot here.  Lately I generally ignore it, but this particular example is so bald, that I feel the need to comment, just as a reality check if nothing else.

Not for nothing, but this post is, frankly, a load of garbage.

Do you actually know anyone -- anyone at all -- who holds even vaguely liberal political views?

Are those people totally lacking in any core values?

Are they, to a man, really devoid of any concern, love, or devotion to this country?

If you think about it for a few minutes, are you really incapable of bringing to mind anyone with a liberal political view who possesses any moral values or character, whatsoever?

None who live their lives in a principled, honest, and upright manner?

Can't think of anyone whose political views veer left who has, for instance, signed up, gone overseas, and seen active combat in military service?

Perhaps been wounded or killed to defend you and your right to hold these blinkered opinions?

This is a popular talking point here and elsewhere, but it's crap.  If it makes you feel good to believe it, however, by all means put your blinders firmly in place and carry on.

Haven't weighed in on this one for a while, this was refreshing in a depressing sort of way.  Thanks, I suppose, for providing me with the proverbial fish in a barrel.

Cheers -

Look, my thesis is that this starts with the President.  I certainly did not mean to imply that it ends with him as well.  But the Party does not set the long-term foreign policy strategy, and the party does not make and implement national policy - the President and his administration do that.  Therefore, it seems reasonable to assert that the first link in the information chain is the Administration,

Also, the Administration is going to have the information about the "good works" much sooner than the party.  If the Administration are not getting this info out to the party, then shame on them and they need to start doing that.  If the Party has dropped the ball here, then shame on them, Mehlman should be fired and replaced by someone who will be filling my (and other activists) mailboxes daily with progress reports from the front.

There is plenty of blame to go around here, and plenty of work to be done by many people - but I stick with my original point, it starts with the President.

I am saying that the people currently in the MSM...

That's an important distinction. Too many people here are not taking the trouble to make it. There is no "MSM" that is a magical talking monolith. There is only a collection individual liberals, each of whom is doing his liberal best to report the news as he sees it.

You can love either Reagan or Bush, or hate them.  But, neither of them were or are cowboys.

Cheers -

This is part-and-parcel as to why the constant re-hashing of the run-up to the war is not only counter-productive but downright idiotic.  We're there, move on.  Thanks for stating this better than I did above.

The President needs to be seen as out-front, on top of the situation, in command of the facts and the vision - even if he's not the person delivering the daily message (he shouldn't be).   Most importantly, he needs to be looking forward and not back.  Navel-gazing is very unattractive in people - men in particular.  It's fatal in people who claim to be leaders.

One can spread the good news without necesarily "acknowledging criticism" from anyone.  That's the party's job - but the info comes from somewhere.  My argument is that it should come from The Top - indirectly, at least.

Cheers.

How many DKos types join the military? If they did, how would you like to be their commanding officer? I know liberals and there is not one who I would choose or expect to stand and fight. It is not their nature. Give them a safe corner in the USA and they will wave a sign, sing and play martyr. Why do Liberals get vehemently defensive? Without core values, they are unable to have the calm self confidence that comes from knowing wrong from right and good from evil.

I'll bite.

IYO, what is a cowboy then?

TBone -

To tell you the truth, your statements cause me no pain at all.  I have more important things to worry about.

We have no basis for conversation, and with that, I will end.

Cheers -

A cowboy is someone who makes his living working livestock.  It's a tough life, and doesn't pay well, but folks that do it seem to love it.

Cheers -

But what branch did you serve in?

Please tell us what you mean by CORE values. I would really like to know?  Do you Liberals not believe that murder is wrong?  Do Liberals not believe that stealing is wrong?  Just curious because it seems you know a lot more about Liberals than I do.

I know cause I saw the pictures of him doing cowboy stuff.  ;)

So, I'm assuming that unless one spends all of his employment energy tending horses or livestock, then he can not qualify as a cowboy, IYO?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Honestly, I think this was just a back-handed slap at Reagan and Bush from you.

Reagan spent the bulk of his later years on his ranch in CA enjoying horses quite often.  My guess is GWB will do much of the same once he leaves office.  

So yeah, I think we can call them cowboys.  Sorry it doesn't fit your narrow definition.

How many DKos types join the military?

Well, for starters, there's Markos Moulitsas, the actual "Kos"...

Like amos, I won't dignify your contention that liberals lack core values with a response.

spin game, for the most part their ability to use the media to their advantage is non existant.  Part of it is that Bush just isn't much of a press hound.  Reagan may have been loathed, but he was constantly doing press conferences and constantly making the case for his administrations actions.  Bush just doesn't seem to do that, so the media and the left just beat him up, and Bush shrugs it off and does his thing.

I am not all that impressed at all with McClellan and I don't think Ari was a whole lot better.  Bush's front press man can't even seem to make a coherant argument at times.

I think some of it is just Bush's style, the rest is a total lack of media savvy.  Something Reagan and Clinton both had.

Actually, it was not a slap at either Reagan or Bush.  Or, perhaps, mildly, Bush in terms of the image he cultivates vs the reality of his CV.

What I intended was a comment on (a) the reality of cowboys vs the myth, and (b) the appropriateness of the myth as a useful guide to the qualities needed for governing the United States of America.  Sorry for the lack of clarity.

I'm glad Reagan enjoyed his retirement, and I hope Bush does as well.

Cheers -

Cowboys are symbols of rugged individualism, so they are great for marketing - just ask Marlboro.  George W. Bush bought his ranch in... 1999.

A P.S..

I suppose I also intended a comment on the difficulty and hard work involved in actually making a living working livestock.  In other words, I intended to "give props" to actual cowboys.

Everybody wants to be like a cowboy, but nobody wants to actually be one.

Cheers -

It is not that liberals don't consider murder wrong, it's that they don't want to admit what is murder and what is killing. That is their whole problem with abortion. If you are willing to admit that abortion is murder, you don't have to weasel around with a bunch of baloney about right to choose, etc, etc. These arguments are perfect examples of moral relevancy. Liberals can't admit abortion is murder but that just the inconvenience of a particular individual outweighs its right to life.

If you have  solid core values, you can judge that not all killing is murder. This is why conservatives can be both prolife and pro death penalty. We can judge that a convicted murder has forfeited his right to life by his actions. We just can't come up with a good reason why an unborn child has forfeited its life and deserves to be killed. If it doesn't deserve to be killed, then it must be murder.

Liberals may consider holding up a 7/11 stealing while not having any problem with confiscatory tax rates for the rich.

Core values make conservatives fair judges. Right/wrong, next case. Liberal judges always have to find an excuse that fits their relevant views.

In short, if you have core values, you know what is, is.

thing people tend to ignore is that the "sales job" set the standard for the war. Anyone in the military will tell you that you set a worst case scenario. The standard set was that of a low casualty and quick war. Don't know how this problem can be undone.

And I'm with you on the platitudes. They are condescending and irritating.

catch heat for this for reasons I don't understand. I'll guarantee 9 out of 10 criticisms of this will be from people who have either used the chickenhawk argument or have commented on Cheney's draft deferral or Bush's National Guard service.

You reap what you sow.

Go for it, Tbone.

I mean I'm only a Command and General Staff College grad, that's not what I learned.

You plan based on facts and assumptions. You don't plan on "worst case". That's ridiculous.

Liberals don't kill stuff and eat it either. Let some one else do the dirty work and pass the "lucky" free range chicken. Even "Hunter" John wouldn't Kerry the dead goose.

say you plan on a worst case I said you sell it to the public with a worst case. What if Americans were told there would be 10,000 casualites and we would be in Iraq for 10 years? Where would the public sentiment be now?

Don't you think that telling people it was going to be easy was a mistake?

you're channeling either Louis Farrakhan or Lyndon LaRouche. Seriously.

the media is just as prone to dance around dead GIs firing their rhetorical AK-47s in the air as the Zarqawi bunch. Remember the breathless countdowns to 500 then 1000 the 1500 dead.

And I'll plead guilty of to an absolute contempt and loathing for the media.

BTW, it is the media who tell us they aren't Americans, or accompany jihadis into battle, or try to create Vietnam analogies or making stuff up.

no one ever said it was going to be easy.

In fact, I remember many times being told that this would be hard work and would take time.

But hey, condescending and irritating are a step up from backwards and fundamentalist.

ever being told it was going to be easy, at least by anyone who counted.

Remember the big controversy over the use of the term cakewalk by Ken Adeleman?

And this:

Beyond that, too many reporters accepted the military's description of the Republican Guard as a formidable force, when in fact those units rolled up like a cheap carpet in the face of the U.S. advance. News organizations accepted without much question the Pentagon's forecast that Baghdad would be fiercely defended. When it fell with only spotty resistance, the American performance seemed all the more impressive. Amid all the reports of success, major battlefield lapses were insufficiently reported and analyzed. The first major assault by Apache helicopters was one example. The raid was a disaster, with one aircraft downed, its crew captured, and the rest of the choppers so badly shot up by ground fire that the entire unit was rendered incapable of fighting. But it was reported as just one more development in a busy day of war news. Overall grade for gullibility . . .C-

Didn't he just deliver a major, prime time Iraq speech a few weeks ago? It was well received and bumped up his numbers for a while(not that THAT should be a goal at all).

How many times does he have to keep making the same speech? The more he does it, the more the MSM will report "...the lame-duck Bush is trying to prop up his sagging poll numbers.."

I think he's counting on events--like an Iraqi constitution--to outweigh the usual media games.

Don't you think that telling people it was going to be easy was a mistake?

Did you think sliding that one by us was going to be easy?

Not a good strategy.

You have a much higher opinion of, and seem far more tolerant of the media than I. I consider the MSM the greatest threat to the future of this country because they try to suck all of the will out of the people to do what is right and good.

If your support for the war has in fact increased, I'd like to know what exactly you have done to "support" it.  And more importantly, what have you personally sacrificed or contributed to the war effort because you  "understand the costs of failure in this venture"?

I am continually amazed at the roar of support coming from so many hawks on the right, and the accompanying complete absence of any real tangible effort to actually support the war or the troops.  I could say "If you support the war so much, why don't you enlist?", but I won't.  I'll ask a much easier question: Name one thing that you have personally done to support the war effort.  Have you sent any cookies to the troops?  Do you have a military pen pal?  Is one of your family members serving?

I do not know you from Adam, so my questions are really more rhetorical than serious.  perhaps you have done many things to support the troops.  Perhaps you are even in the Guard or Reserve.  I raise the questions because most people that I meet who are supportive of the war are unwilling to enlist and really do nothing more than throw a yellow ribbon sticker on their SUV.  Some people's ability to abdicate the responsibility that their political philosophy requires is appalling to me.  "Supporting" the war should mean more than talking about it while other people die so that you may do so.

comments to?

Me? Nick? Streiff?

Not sure who you expect to answer that.

had just a hint of not difficult.

Actions speak louder than words, act when the timing is right.

President Bush does not need to defend his actions, particularly to the Liberals and moonbats, who would use any defense by Bush as an excuse to employee their idiotic arguments.  A defense by Bush would become the latest cause du jour, following DeLay, Rove, Roberts, and Sheehan.

Liberals seem to be pleased with their performance on these issues, but being utterly negative on a silly topic is not the way to win the American electorate.  President Bush should not get into a silly conversation on Liberal terms.  

The big movements in Presidential approval ratings hinge on events; 09/11, move into and swift victory in Afghanistan, ditto Iraq, death of Uday and Qusay, capture of Saddam, and the Iragi vote in January are examples.  And even at that, Bush needs to be popular only in November 2006 and November 2008.

Since the Ba'athists and al-Qa'eda have foolishly challenged the Coalition and the vast majority of Iraqi citizens, the terrorists will have to be ground down in order to make their defeat obvious and irrevocable.  We have time to do that.  The new Iraqi Constitution and the Iraqi elections are yet to be completed.  Something should be done about Syria, and something must be done about the Irani nukes.  But all these items can be completed before election season, to popular approval.

President Bush may very well have occasion to communicate with the American people.  But don't waste time defending against or arguing with Liberals.  That would just be a distraction.

I do remember this:

The first major assault by Apache helicopters was one example. The raid was a disaster, with one aircraft downed, its crew captured, and the rest of the choppers so badly shot up by ground fire that the entire unit was rendered incapable of fighting. But it was reported as just one more development in a busy day of war news.

Whoever ordered that should have been relieved of command.

"The standard set was that of a low casualty and quick war."

We have in fact had low casualties and a quick war, as these things go. Some people have decided that any casualties are too many.

We have suffered far worse losses in a matter of hours in previous wars, so its hard to see why everyone keeps acting like Iraq is a sandy Stalingrad.

and that is money. when the msm dispatches an army of reporters to cover missing white girls, it is not because the msm is racist, its because people will watch it, and they will watch it for extended periods of time.

when every major network blared the trumpets of war and splashed flags across their screens 24/7, it was not because news directors were caught up in a war frenzy. it was because there was a frenzy to be fed. the same goes for the negative stuff now. if it is your job to maximize viewership, which segment do you lead with: "troops killed" or "school built"?

To confine my reply to the issue of military service, which more or less scratches the surface of TBone's rant:

It is, plain and simple, a matter of fact that people of all political persuasions have served, and are serving, with honor, in the wars in which we are currently engaged as well as any other war you care to name in this nation's history.

You're closer to this than I am, streiff, but it's hard for me to believe that you would find the above statement false.  Lemme know if I'm wrong about that.

Cheers -

What does it say to you that the same comments can be found at KOS...?

The truth is that both sides screw up and they both HATE IT when their mistakes get splashed in front of Joe Public

In terms of war, these are minimal casulties. I completely agree. Yet the American public seems to feel (at least according to the polls) that the losses are now significant. I remember one poll with the wording that went something like, "In light of the casualties now suffered, do you still think it was worth it to g to Iraq". It was a significant number who said it wasn't worth it.

Either Americans are gutless and unwilling to bleed or they seem to feel that the bar was set too low and now they resent the 'high casualty rates'.

Its basic human psychology. If you establish expectations and then exceed them in a negative way, people will be angry. There have been nearly 2000 killed, low for a war. Yet people are angry, ergo....

We are not talking about "both sides", we are talking about the press which is decidedly on one side; and it is not the side of America. I'll have to take your word for what can be found at KOS, I don't spend my time hanging around cesspools.

You complain, with some justice, that the President doesn't always seem engaged in the task of defending himself. Well, that may be true, but it isn't because he can't do it, or because he doesn't care what other people think about him.  Personally, I think it's because he has a lot of other important things on his mind, and he has to attend to them.

However, I suspect you're allowing yourself to get a little too caught up in the moment.  Right now President Bush is going through a bit of a rough patch, both in terms of poll numbers and in terms of policy objectives.  

But frankly, that isn't exactly a new experience for this President.  If he seems a bit politically sluggish it may be because his political situation isn't yet bad ENOUGH to rouse him to action. I honestly believe that President Bush is one of those rare political leaders who was made for terrible times. He is at his best when everything seems to be falling apart.  Consider the last election: rising oil prices, a controversial war in Iraq, an enthusiastic and well-funded campaign to annihilate his presidency, a media willing to fabricate stories to beat him ... and he still won.  Trust me on this docj, it is only when Bush seems utterly defeated that he starts to win.

is true or no, I'm not going to defend anyone against this charge.

For 5 years Bush's military service has been attacked. For over 2 there has been a non-stop stream of "chickenhawk" directed even at military retirees.

This has not been from those on the right.

Truth or falsity didn't come into play before now so I see no reason why truth or falsity should be an issue now.

containing a direct quote from Cheney to this statement.

Do you think GWB sees Americans as his "employees"?  If he's our first "CEO" President, I've seen enough.

If you've got a really good library near you, go back and read the news accounts of the President's statements leading up to the war.

I've done just that at the Washington Library here in Chicago, and I was surprised to find that yeah, if Bush didn't lie, then at least, as Hugh Hewitt says: "He made a mistake"

The mistake of lying.

You get to make assertions like this unbacked only once before we ban you. Correct this behavior now or leave our house.

..in a democracy, a president does need to defend his actions.  That's how it works.

Or are you also of the "Bush is the CEO and we're all his employees" opinion?

cnarges tossed at one disabled veteran I personally know (my husband).

The sad thing is if wasn't for my husbands disability he probably would have joined up again.

The chickenhawk meme is a crappy charge, but one liberals can't seem to withold from tossing around.

men to a training excersize.  Nobody decided to call off the Normandy invasion though.

TV 24/7 and our perception of war has definitely been skewed, and I think skewed to unrealistic expectations.

are sluggish to make his case for his policy regarding the war or any other thing.

I think he should constantly be making it, and I wish he had some more media savvy people in the admin to help that along.  McClellan half the time seems like a deer caught in the headlights, or a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar fumbling for an excuse to avoid punishment.

streiff -

With respect:

I understand that your objection is to the "chickenhawk" claim, however I don't see that charge raised anywhere in the thread following on TBone's post.

I'd also say that truth or falsity is always an issue, in fact is always the preeminent issue.

Cheers -

It's just not "him" to have to explain himself to anyone.  I don't see it as arrogant and I doubt he intends it to be.  It's just CEO style leadership.  He runs the country like a CEO.  CEO's don't defend their decisions to their employees.  They make a decision and move forward.

The problem with this is that the US is not a corporation, Bush is not a CEO, we are not his employees, quite the contrary in fact, and there are larger issues at stake than Bush's preferences as to personal executive style.  To put a point on it -- if Bush is under the impression that he is under no obligation to articulate persuasive arguments for his decisions, he is in the wrong job, and we will suffer for it.

From a practical poitical standpoint there is the old addage in politics.... "if you're playing defense.... you're losing"

The problem with this is that this is not a game.

Cheers -

I have in fact donated money to the USO, donated supplies (baby wipes, etc.) to a couple of individual soldiers (one of whom is a pen-pal to my 10-year old daughter's class), volunteered for recall to the Army (from which I left in 1997 as a Captain - they told me "Thanks, but no thanks."), provided comfort and companionship to a neighbor - who (himself a 2-tour Vietnam vet) has a son getting ready to go back to Iraq for a 3rd tour, and a couple of other things that are none of your God d*mned business.

So frankly, you can kiss my fat white *ss for more answers to your "rhetoric".

Nichols02 -

You are actually factually incorrect here.

Reagan did not lay out a vision, once, and then tell everyone to get out the way.  Reagan repeatedly, coherently, and persuasively explained his point of view.  He did not let criticism prevent him from moving forward, nor did he answer it in kind, but answer it he did.

Cheers -

Markos (the founder of dkos) joined the army in '89 and served in the artillery until `92.  

I don't have much use for trolls, either on dkos or here.  Like most people who blog, I read sites on both the left and right. And like most bloggers I post only on sites where I am in general agreement with the main blogger.

But in this case, I can't resist.

personally did almost daily press conferences.  Sure the press didn't always like what he had to say, but he was always there saying it.

I think Reagan enjoyed the question and answer sessions and was comfortable in press conferences, this is one thing I do not think Bush is comfortable with, which may be part of the reason he doesn't articulate his case well, or keep his argument at the forefront.

Reagan knew and understood how to use the media to his advantage, even when they were hostile to him, Bush and his admin just don't seem to have that same understanding.  

... that because the left seemingly has no problem using the most outrageous "mis-statements" in pursuit of their goals, they assume that everyone who says anything incorrect is lying.

What is so difficult about understanding that using incorrect information supplied by the experts is not the same as lying?

 People are finally starting to come to the realization that the problem actually rests with Bush, and has all along.

 Why not get tired of constantly defending this administration and president? At best, they are hopelessly inept and devoid of conservative values.

 At worst, they are hopelessly corrupt and devoid of any ethical values.

 So many members here have an impending sense of doom in the coming election cycles in '06 and '08, but what they fail to see is that they are contributing to it by supporting this administration.

 You don't defend this guy out of a sense of party loyalty, you criticize him for dragging the good Republican name through the mud.

 You don't defend this guy out of a sense of patriotism, you criticize him for having materially weakened our national security.

 His unwillingness to face his detractors is only half of the problem. The other half is your willingness to carry out character assassination on his behalf. Both coupled together create a political goldmine for the Dems.

 DocJ, I am with you and have been for a long time. Don't contribute to the impending train wreck. Become a voice for reason and push for the Republican party to get back to it's core values before it's too late.

 Bring on the flames...

 

Have you forgotten the huge celebration on the aircraft carrier in 2003.  "Mission Accomplished" the banner said.

The truth is the administration has consistently been too optimistic.

The worst case in Iraq is that we will be there for decades. In fact, it is the LIKELY result.

If anyone in the adminstration has said that then I missed it.

Rules are not proven by exceptions. The majority of the volunteer military is conservative. Look at the polls and surveys. The point is that an army of liberals would not be an army, just a bunch of guys testing every order against some relative, individual opinion. Is this a good order or a bad order? Is this a good battle or a bad battle? Is this a just war or an unjust war? If the answer comes out no, then it is ok to cut and run, shoot yourself in the foot, protest when you get out to justify your abandonment of duty, accuse those who remain as war criminals and sympathize with the enemy. Son-of-a-gun, I think I just described John Kerry.

Here is a way home, www.dailykos.com

Hey Thone, this is just the guy on Star Trek (the original) in the red uniform on the away team at the beginning of the episode.  No name, and he'll be eaten by aliens before the second commercial break.

media is to delve into the truth of an issue and give objective reporting as opposed to a one sided biased report.  I have no problem with a media biased as long as it is up front and honest about it. Which the MSM is not.

 If KOSsack-ville was really my home, I wouldn't be here giving you pointers. I'd be over there working to help them capitalize on this. Not that it's difficult or anything....

 Read the comments posted previously and you'll see that the majority here supports my position.  Which means that if I'm a flaming liberal, then this has to be one of the biggest liberal blogs on the net.

I remember it all too.

The mission of the USS Lincoln was indeed accomplished after 10 months at sea.

Next talking point?

Bush Begins 5-Day Push to Defend Iraq War

Democracy is not a holiday that comes once every four years, and our elected officials do not stop being accountable to us after the votes are tallied.

Yeah, but they have to listen to everybody, not just you.

This is not a democracy. You get to vote for a President every 4 years. In between he doesn't have to ask your opinion.

You better go give them your "pointers". Republican President, majorities in Senate and House and Kossacks 0-16.

Just because you may be just right of Howard Dean doesn't mean you belong here.

I had no idea that, in addition to my many other talents, I'm psychic as well.  Or perhaps it's that I'm getting my daily transmissions from The Rove once again - can't tell.

In either case, this is welcome news - though I must say that don't much like the "defend" part.  I don't think there's anything to "defend", but the Nation would be well served if the Administration would tell us, daily, the good news coming out of Iraq.  We'll see if this is the beginning of a sustained effort to get back in front of the story.

Cheers.

being "everybody".

Me, personally? At this point there is next to nothing Bush could do to reclaim my trust. If the man declared that the sun rose in the east, I'd triple-check to make sure he was talking about Earth instead of Venus or Pluto. I am not, however, the intended audience here. I'm simply pointing out that our elected officials are accountable to all of us all the time, not just in election season. I would hope that this would be an uncontroversial statement here, given the calls for Taft's resignation, the Gray Davis recall, and the Clinton impeachment brouhaha.

Look around you. The majority of people posting in this diary--including the person who wrote it--are conservatives. They are Republicans who support Bush and what he is doing. If it makes you feel better to frame this kind of thing as complaints coming from liberals and doomsayers, feel free; it's your fellow travelers you're insulting, not me.

As best I can tell I put Russert's words into Cheney's mouth.

What I should have said was this...Cheney's statement that "...we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators" (Meet The Press, March 16, 2003) doesn't make the effort sound too difficult.

This is not a democracy.

First of all, I see this republic/democracy canard trotted out by otherwise intelligent people far too often as a substitute for argument. It's kinda like correcting someone who says we have 50 states telling them that Virginia is a commonwealth: technically accurate, but pedantic and silly in everyday conversation. We may have four states whose founding documents refer to themselves as commonwealths, but we are not the United States and Commonwealths of America, we are the United States of America, and it is perfectly accurate to use the phrase "all fifty states", regardless of what Virginia and Massachusetts and so on have to say about it. Similarly, it is perfectly accurate to say that America is a democracy in the context of making a point about our elected officials and their accountability to the people they were elected to represent--which includes all of said people, and not simply those of the same political party.

Second, if you're going to play "check your dictionary" gotcha games, you might want to try checking your dictionary first. In mine, the first definition of "democracy" is "[g]overnment by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives". This is hardly inconsistent with what America is. If you disagree, I suggest you take up your disagreement with President Bush, who has asserted on many occasions that we do indeed enjoy the benefits of democracy, and are on a mission to spread it to the rest of the world.

You get to vote for a President every 4 years. In between he doesn't have to ask your opinion.

Do you sincerely believe that the President does not need the support or opinions of the American people? That the desires of the people he is elected to lead are collectively irrelevant? This is a profoundly silly argument that scarcely deserves rebuttal. If you think that your party can achieve its goals and sustain an indefinite war footing without the support of the American people, then by all means--have at it. I doubt you'll find many people who do actual work in politics who'd agree with this fantasy, but have on. The GOP spent decades in the political wilderness, and I personally have no problem seeing what the GOP has become today return to that wilderness.

As I responded to Nick above, however, you may want to look around you. A liberal didn't write this diary, and I don't see many liberals among the many who've commented in agreement with it.

Politicians ignore the apathy and erosion of their base at their peril.

GOP politicians, especially the GOP politicians, ignore the apathy and disgust of their base at their own peril!  People I work with and go to church with and meet in my travels daily here in Georgia are more and more telling me they have no loyalty to a "political party".  Then there are the "yellow dog Democrats" who would not recognize a candidate with morals and ethics if they met him or her.

I'm simply pointing out that our elected officials are accountable to all of us all the time, not just in election season.

But because of the clever, diabolical nature of our system, the only time we measure how well they're listening is at election time. The only time, if you prefer, that we mandate that they check in with us formally comes regularly. It came. He checked in. We gave him a thumbs up. As long as he leaves office when he's supposed to, he's done everything we legally require of him on that end.

I dismiss this as the sort of griping that Reagan endured. Having seen it once before, I'm rather sanguine about it now.

And we are indeed a Republic. We skip over that at our own peril.

Not having as much spleen built up as you do, I can make this relatively brief: I neither want nor would accept a system of government in which our elected officials have to keep checking up with us on every decision.

Put differently, you're giddy now because some polls show Bush with bad numbers. What happens if we get polls showing a majority of the country in favor of torturing prisoners at Gitmo for kicks?

Reagan ignored "the erosion of his base" during his second term. Clinton didn't, because he so desperately needed their love and vocal support in 1998 and 1999. Contemplate the difference.

And that's the critical difference. The Executive branch is his employee set. We vote for whether to leave him and his similarly minded officers in place, or not.

The analogy is not so cruddy as you suggest.

If you're going to make an allegation, kindly back it up please. Where's the bait and switch--or, indeed, any contradiction whatsoever--between these two statements?

"Democracy is not a holiday that comes once every four years, and our elected officials do not stop being accountable to us after the votes are tallied."

"I'm simply pointing out that our elected officials are accountable to all of us all the time, not just in election season."

The only time, if you prefer, that we mandate that they check in with us formally comes regularly. It came. He checked in. We gave him a thumbs up. As long as he leaves office when he's supposed to, he's done everything we legally require of him on that end.

The important phrase there is legally required. I never said anything about what was strictly, legally required of the President because I thought it was self-evident that the question of political accountability was much broader than that. Are you trying to say that the sole means we have to hold the President accountable for his policies is by choosing whether or not to re-elect him? Ridiculous, especially when we're waging a war with a volunteer army. Who do you suppose fights that war, and how eager do you suppose they will be to continue fighting it if they don't believe in it? Who do you suppose legislates the President's agenda, and how eager will they be to pass that legislation if they sense that their own re-election is in jeopardy because the President hasn't convinced them said agenda is a good idea (see: social security).

The fact is, whether you like to admit it or not the opinions of the American people do matter, and they matter every single day of every single year. And as I said below, politicians from the President on down ignore this at their peril.

The USA was founded as a Republic.  The founders long debated the proper form for our new government, and we ended up with a republic. The whole idea was to deliver stability in a democratic context.  

President Bush's approval ratings hit 90% after 09/11, and have risen and fallen several times since then.  But for an administration to function in the long term, it must be able to look beyond the daily polls to build a program for enduring results.  We cannot change leadership (or policies) every time the polls change; that is a formula for instability and disaster.

Consequently, it would be a disaster to precipitously depart Iraq now, or at any time before the terrorists, Ba'athist, Shi'ite, or al-Qa'eda, were soundly defeated, and that defeat made obvious and irrevocable.  

The Democrats led us down that path in Vietnam, but the Democrats did not pay an immediate price for their foolishness; the Vietnamese people and the cause of democracy paid the price for the Democrat's foolishness.  That is a major element in the Democrat's ongoing electoral misfortunes, and they absolutely do not understand what they did to the country, and to the world, and to themselves.  Never again.

Several posters on this thread have questioned the importance of the distinction between a democracy and a republic.  Go back to school and understand that distinction; it is vital that we preserve our republican form of government.

Ronald Reagan was an arrogant idealogue who just used his popularity as a tool to further his secret, nefarious[can it be nefarious and secret? not for long I guess] agenda of destruction of the middle class and attacks on innocent patriots in the third world,

while

WJClinton was a true man of the people who thrived on the adulation of the masses, and didn't care one bittle lit about policy or ideas as long as he got the love he never had as a child, and would never shoot a social democrat unless the ghost of RonBrown said it was okay?

[hmm absent father, doting mother, feelings of inferiority, aspirations to great things, dependence on popularity, sexual promiscuity, a body of fanatically devoted minions, writer of long boring tedious self-deluded books-- it seems like a lot of Clinton's potential has been overlooked. I wonder how he would look with a moustache?  Maybe he could have had a third term?]

Should Bush wear a Red tie or a Blue tie or a Yellow tie for his recorded Radio Address?  Please vote now.

Virginia is indeed a Commonwealth--I was born there--and the United States of America is, in fact, a Republic. However, we are also a democracy and and Virginia is also a state, and that mini-rant was inteded to address Tbone's incredibly silly attempt at ignoring my argument by making an irrelevant aside about the definitions of a democracy and a republic.

Put differently, you're giddy now because some polls show Bush with bad numbers.

I think you must have confused me with someone else. Where on earth did I talk about Bush's poll numbers, popularity, or evidence giddiness over it? Come on, you rightly pan this style of argument when a Democrat comes here and does it. Why not address the underlying point that I'm making instead of making up things that I didn't say so that you can shoot them down?

Reagan ignored "the erosion of his base" during his second term. Clinton didn't, because he so desperately needed their love and vocal support in 1998 and 1999. Contemplate the difference.

I don't see how either is particularly relevant to whether or not Bush's failure to effectively engage the American people, and continually keep them informed and supportive of what he considers the most important struggle of our time, inhibits his ability to effectively prosecute that struggle and enact the rest of his agenda.

Enjoying horses makes you a cowboy.  I like them quite a bit and ride them often, but I'm no cowboy.  "Bush as cowboy" (like "Reagan as cowboy") is a convenient marketing construct.

Well, state versus commonwealth is since they are competing labels. But not republic versus democracy. There are certain narrow definitions of each that could be used in an exclusivist argument -- that a democracy is only rule by referendum, or that republic is  but most definitions of both can co-exist quite happily.

Catsy was clearly making a point about citizen interaction and involvement in the process in the in-between years -- regardless of whether or not the president cares -- and saying that role was as much a part of our democratic republic as voting was, no matter if it was recorded or official. People willfully pretended she'd made another point.

So Tbone nitpicking -- what spurred this particular line of argument in the first place -- wasn't correct nor in good faith, and patronizations like Santiago's ("go back to school...") are foolish and misplaced.

Our unique, personal, highly important opinions matter every two years in November. Period.

Are you trying to say that the sole means we have to hold the President accountable for his policies is by choosing whether or not to re-elect him?

Or his successors. Otherwise, yes.

Ridiculous, especially when we're waging a war with a volunteer army.

Actually, you have it precisely backward: At best, your argument has weight when the army is conscripted, because then the sovereign is demanding the potential sacrifice of men's lives, sometimes against their discretion. With a volunteer army, as those who actually serve in that army are wont to say, you sign on the dotted line.

Who do you suppose fights that war, and how eager do you suppose they will be to continue fighting it if they don't believe in it?

Mostly, but unfortunately not only, men; well, let's check the reenlistment and retention numbers.

Who do you suppose legislates the President's agenda, and how eager will they be to pass that legislation if they sense that their own re-election is in jeopardy because the President hasn't convinced them said agenda is a good idea (see: social security).

Congress. We vote on their tenures, too. (Try to keep up.)

Actually, in fairness, Congress long ago unconstitutionally delegated a lot of its power to Executive Agencies, so properly, the answer is Congress, for whom we vote, and the Executive Branch, for whom we vote (well, only a couple of those).

I'm not sure what Social Security has to do with Iraq, but then again, I'm not sure you do either.

The fact is, whether you like to admit it or not the opinions of the American people do matter, and they matter every single day of every single year.

Yes. And we are all individuals.

Unless we pretend the words have different meanings than they do. We allow a broad voting base, like a democracy; but our governmental form is a Republic. And that goes precisely to the heart of this dispute: In a democracy, the leaders are constantly subject to public pressure, and can and will be recalled on short notice. In a Republic, we set up a regular referendum on the point, and tell them what we think then. In the interim, our opinion only matters insofar as it tells the group of self-interesteds their chance of holding their jobs come the next referendum.

The "corporate" analogy is because it's too facile.  It's true that we can all be seen as shareholders, but that's too shallow.  Really, shareholders care about return on investment, and not so much on how that return is gained.  On the other hand, we as citizens have a HUGE stake in how our return on investment (freedom) is gained.  In other words, we as citizen-shareholders care not only about the end result of the investment, but also quite a bit with how the investment is gained (Bill of Rights).

The central point of debate is whether Bush must listen to our carping right now. He may have a moral duty to do so, but quite frankly, I don't see it. If he doesn't listen to us, his party and his successor will suffer for it at the voting booth.

More broadly, this Bush isn't listening well, isn't communicating, blah blah garbage has been a truism of the last four years, every August. It's like the freaking tides. At the end of July, things start to go south. Bush goes to the ranch for a month. His numbers are down. The press hates him (well, that's actually a year-round phenomenon). He's losing. His party is doomed in whatever election is coming next. He may be impeached. A meteor the size of Rhode Island is headed right for his head.

Then his vacation ends, he starts talking, the numbers go up, and the left scratches its collective head and wonders what the heck happened.

I wish he wouldn't put us through this roller coaster every year, but it's not like we didn't know about this last November. (Oops! Not supposed to talk about that!)

This is part of why they regularly vote on officers. Profit maximization is the big thing, but it's not unheard of to have voting aim at means, too.

Yeah, for 1,460 straight days we get no real input as to how the president acts. Then, on one day, we get to have our say. There are also less abstract and more technical checks and balances when you consider the president's interaction with the legislature. But, basically, the democracy we live in isn't as "pure" as it could be (no moral component implied in my use of "pure").

Catsy's point, I think, was that during that long stretch of virtual non-representation the "democracy" part of America demands that even if the president doesn't have to do what we want him to do, he does have to listen.

Basically, if someone is saying that Bush is violating the principals of our nation by not acceding to public pressure, that person is completely wrong. But if someone is saying that we aren't a democratic republic which thrives and has always thrived on a boisterous and demanding public -- even in absence of a malleable president -- I think that person is just as wrong.

People were just talking past each other and it led to a kerfluffle about semantics, and I thought that was unnecessary.

  # No profanity.

Well, you did okay on that one.

  # No personal attacks.

Can't really be personal if it's across-the-board.

  # No harassment or demonization of a particular individual.

Skip the individual and just demonize a whole class of people.  I guess that works.

My Blue Brother, who killed Iraqis on your behalf, would be thrilled to know that he has no core values.  I'm glad I, too, have been suitably educated.

He wasn't talking about the mission of the USS Lincoln.  To refresh your memory:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/01/iraq/main551946.shtml

what a sweeping generalization!

If Republican "values" are so great, why, now that the country is under their control, are we seeing an increase in abortions (over 15% a year in some states) and teen drug use under the Bush administration?

I've never heard a liberal say, "this Country is not worth dying for" or "No one should have to die in a war".  Ever.  You just made those comments up, unless you can provide a link.  It seems to be a typical Republican tactic: make up something that the enemy has supposedly said, and blast it as though they really did say it.  And then accuse them of not taking responsibility for something they did not say!

Someone who's not taking responsiblity is Bush.  He should take responsiblity for the poor planning prior to the invasion of Iraq.  He should take responsibilty for the record deficits.  He should take responsibility for the illegal campaign contributions he received in Ohio.  He should take responsibility for the $21 billion that has been "misplaced" in Iraq.

Instead of taking responsibility, he "stays the course".

Some "values".

"I'm going all over the country telling moms: "This country is not worth dying for.""

"America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17915

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/rubin081705.htm

Actually, you have it precisely backward: At best, your argument has weight when the army is conscripted, because then the sovereign is demanding the potential sacrifice of men's lives, sometimes against their discretion. With a volunteer army, as those who actually serve in that army are wont to say, you sign on the dotted line.

Precisely. And if the President has not sufficiently convinced them that the sacrifice he is asking them to make is worth making... are they more likely, or less, to sign on that dotted line?

There are, of course, many fine people who will join the armed forces regardless of whether or not there's a war, and for many reasons: because they think service is noble, because they've always wanted to be in the Army, because their vision of patriotism requires them to enlist--name your reason, and there's someone who'll fit the bill.

But I honestly don't think these people make up the majority of the armed forces. Certainly the Army would be profoundly weaker if it were only the aforementioned types, because far more join for other considerations: for a steady paycheck, college money, good training, experience you can't beat on a resume, to gain leadership skills, from parental or peer pressure, or any number of other reasons that, at their core, boil down to personal gain or self-improvement. For the people whose service is not unquestionably mandated by their ideology or nature, service in the military will inevitably be weighed against the risk of personal death or injury. For some, the threshold beyond which they will not (re-)enlist is low. For others, very high. But the threshold exists, and no one worth taking seriously can dispute that if a war is unpopular, fewer people will enlist, and beyond a certain point that will have an absolute and undeniable impact on the ability of the President to wage that war, as more trained soldiers with valuable skills decline to re-up, and fewer people are willing to enlist to replace them. We are seeing this right now.

Mostly, but unfortunately not only, men; well, let's check the reenlistment and retention numbers.

Yes, let's. I understand they're worrying the Pentagon and recruiters quite a bit. Not that, I'm sure, you'll have any problem finding anecdotal quotes that you think refute this. But let's be honest here: we're unlikely to agree on what those numbers mean now, but I defy you to dispute that the willingness of citizens to fight in a volunteer army--tied in a very real way to the effectiveness of the President in making his case for a war's continuance--has any effect on the ability of the government to wage that war.

Congress. We vote on their tenures, too. (Try to keep up.)

Let me know when you're interested in discussion instead of tossing off puerile, parenthetical insults while willfully ignoring the point being made. This sort of aside really doesn't advance any kind of useful discussion.

I'm not sure what Social Security has to do with Iraq, but then again, I'm not sure you do either.

I already spelled it out for you. I'll do it again. The President failed to make a case to the American people that his plan for social security was a good idea. Because of this, those people made it very clear to their elected representatives that supporting this legislation would endanger said representatives' ability to get re-elected. Since these politicians not only care about getting re-elected, but occasionally care about advocating the will of the people they represent, Congress in turn sent a clear message to the President that his vision for social security was dead in the water for now.

Now, let's review. We had an election in November of 2004. Bush was re-elected with a narrow majority. By your definition, that was the only time we had the ability to hold him accountable, the only time during which the collective desire of the American people had any force. I submit to you that your argument, as presented, is completely, utterly, and objectively wrong. It is refuted by demonstrated historical fact.

To be sure, it has an element of truth at its core: Bush failed to advance his SS agenda because Congress feared it would harm their chances of re-election, and we hold those elections every two years. But to assert that just because we only have elections in this country every few years, voters only have the ability to hold the President accountable then--well, I'm sorry, but that statement is simply ignorant of the many ways in which popular opinion can and does hinder or help the President's agenda every single day of the year.

That is the common thread I was drawing between Social Security and Iraq: that the failure of the President enact his SS agenda was a direct result of his failure to convince the electorate that it was a good idea, and that his ongoing failure to convince the electorate that staying in Iraq is a good idea will eventually have a similar result on his ability to sustain that war.

Look: I don't have a dog in this hunt, as far as the GOP is concerned. Bush is not going to convince me of much, and I'll make up or change my own mind about Iraq based on the information I have available. If Bush and the GOP continues to employ your view of governance, good for them--I think it's a short-term winner, but a long-term loser; eventually this kind of arrogance will turn off independent and centrist voters, who will either stay home or defect to other alternatives. We're starting to see that now, and its eventual outcome is that the GOP goes through what the Democrats went through when the American people got sick of their arrogance and entrenched corruption in the early '90s.

The reason why I'm arguing this, and here of all places, is simple: I think this kind of governance, by any party, is bad for America. I don't think any of us benefit from this kind of polarization and viciousness. At this point, I am not sanguine about seeing any change from the hard-core partisans. My hope is simply that there are decent Republicans who have not yet bought into the delusion that "liberals" and "Democrats" are anything inherently other than fellow Americans who, each in their own vision, want the best for this country. I think this nation is healthiest when our elected officials reach out to and consider everyone they represent, instead of playing the system to get 51% and telling the other half of the country to get stuffed. When Republicans were out of power, they said much the same thing about Democratic arrogance--one of the rallying cries of the right, as I recall, was that Democrats were "out of touch" with the American people.

How many shareholders are aware of the means by which the officers procure the profits?  Maybe they find out when a house of cards collapses (see also, any recent corporate scandal), but that seems more incidental.  On the other hand, in the "citizen situation" the means is of primary importance, which is why I think the "corporate analogy" goes too far.  In the corporate case, the corporation can do anything within legal boundaries to get things done, but our government is only allowed to do enumerated things.

Anyway, I'll stop before I become too argumentative about this.  I think it's a very interesting/close analogy, but it just doesn't strike me right for some reason.  So it's helpful to turn the theory round and round to look at it more closely.

Catsy's point, I think, was that during that long stretch of virtual non-representation the "democracy" part of America demands that even if the president doesn't have to do what we want him to do, he does have to listen.

Sort of. More to the point, I think Thomas is overlooking many non-trivial ways in which the voting public most certainly has the power and ability to help the President's agenda or stop it cold. We don't just vote at the ballot box, we vote with our choices every day, and if the President cannot convince a majority of us that X is a good idea, then there's a pretty good chance that X is not going to see the light of day, at least not in a form that will satisfy the President.

I think that Thomas is willfully ignoring these things in favor of making a narrow and irrelevant point about how often election day comes up, and while I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming he's arguing in good faith, he's simply wrong.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/01/iraq/main551946.shtml

"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave -- and we will leave behind a free Iraq."

and found this:

"Apparently these students aren't against all war. "

I couldn't find the quotes you stated. (which doesn't mean they are not there, I just didn't see them). I'm not even going to read the second article, as it's Canadian, and we are in America here.

I do believe that we have to fight for our freedoms in this country.  So do most "leftist" people, regardless of what a few people have said.  What is being objected to is the reasons for going to war, which seem to change every time Bush is confronted with the falseness of his previous "reasons".  First it was WMD.  When none of those were found, now we're "spreading democracy".

Meanwhile, N. Korea and Iran gear up their nuclear capabilities while we are strained in Iraq.

There's an old saying, "work smarter, not harder".

Well, the US gov't could work smarter, not harder, by putting resources to good use and valuing the sacrifice of our soldiers, instead of sending them to die for, what again?

By the way, what is your record of service?

The Canadian article was actually one supporting Ms. Sheehan, but it referenced her comments...

As for the changing reason for the war...not if you read the resolution that was presented to Congress...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

WMDs were a main reason, and for good reason...

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

..but not the only one.

My service record...I grew up dirt poor, and had a choice of college or the military...now I am guessing from the nature of your question that you would have likely have counseled me at the time to choose college..which I did...I am now 39, wishing quite frankly that I had gone into the military, but with arthritic knees I don't think I would be of much help to the military....btw...I am a major capitalist...I teach school for a living.

You may think the "why aren't you serving" argument is a strong one...but with a voluntary military, it is mostly irrelevant.

I'm not so sure.  The main leftist argument is that far more Democratic than Republican members of Congress and the Senate have served in the military.  Their argument is that, if so many republicans are "for" the war, then why aren't they enlisting.  They don't feel it's fair to be "for" the war, if being "for" the war just means sending someone else off to die.

How can you counter that argument?  If you are "for" the war, then enlist.  The age for combat has been raised to 52 - even with your arthritis, I'm sure they'd love to have you!

completely switched in a generation, if the numbers of those supporting GWB in the 2004 election are to trusted...

I have several of my former students in the military right now...all would consider themselves Conservatives.

I was not addressing those already serving in the military.  Obviously, they are walking the walk.

It's the others, like you, who talk the talk, but are afraid to walk the walk who should take the initiative and do so.

Many, many young Conservatives have put it on the line in Iraq...if I thought it would do any good, I would join up as well, but I don't think our guys need 39 year olds who run like a duck, and have a talent for teaching History, beside them on the battlefield.

As for those who are in leadership...Powell, Rumsfeld, and yes, even the President did serve in the military....and two of the three were responsible for our success in 1991...so I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Thomas -

Thanks for your reply.

I actually see the analogy of government to corporations as harmful.  The institutions have different goals, different priorities, different responsibilities.  They exist to serve different purposes.

I agree with your sense that shareholders are a better analogy for citizens than employees, but I think the analogy itself distorts that discussion by introducing a way of thinking about government that is, IMO, wrong-headed.

Cheers -

contradict my statement.

Major combat ops were over then and the USS Lincoln had indeed accomplished it's mission.

That you lefties are still trying to get mileage out of that talking point just goes to show how desperate you all are because you have no new message.

Next.

Precisely. And if the President has not sufficiently convinced them that the sacrifice he is asking them to make is worth making... are they more likely, or less, to sign on that dotted line?

Well, one would suppose less, which leads us to:

Yes, let's. I understand they're worrying the Pentagon and recruiters quite a bit. Not that, I'm sure, you'll have any problem finding anecdotal quotes that you think refute this. But let's be honest here: we're unlikely to agree on what those numbers mean now, but I defy you to dispute that the willingness of citizens to fight in a volunteer army--tied in a very real way to the effectiveness of the President in making his case for a war's continuance--has any effect on the ability of the government to wage that war.

I could be wrong here, but I do believe you're conflating recruiting with retention. At least, your comments suggest as much. Now, I'm open to correction, but I believe the retention goals are being handily met, while the recruiting goals are doing not so well. If you have a link, I'll correct myself.

Let me know when you're interested in discussion instead of tossing off puerile, parenthetical insults while willfully ignoring the point being made. This sort of aside really doesn't advance any kind of useful discussion.

Nor does a lazy segue into a discussion about social security from a discussion about Iraq. I'd say I digress, but I'm down your threadjack here.

Relatedly:

I already spelled it out for you. I'll do it again. The President failed to make a case to the American people that his plan for social security was a good idea. Because of this, those people made it very clear to their elected representatives that supporting this legislation would endanger said representatives' ability to get re-elected. Since these politicians not only care about getting re-elected, but occasionally care about advocating the will of the people they represent, Congress in turn sent a clear message to the President that his vision for social security was dead in the water for now.

Ah. So, put more simply: Nothing.

By your definition, that was the only time we had the ability to hold him accountable, the only time during which the collective desire of the American people had any force.

Well, the first is true, the second is, on its face, not.

To be sure, it has an element of truth at its core: Bush failed to advance his SS agenda because Congress feared it would harm their chances of re-election, and we hold those elections every two years. But to assert that just because we only have elections in this country every few years, voters only have the ability to hold the President accountable then--well, I'm sorry, but that statement is simply ignorant of the many ways in which popular opinion can and does hinder or help the President's agenda every single day of the year.

Well, properly, it's indicative of our ability to weigh in on his choices. Anything else is highly indirect, extralegal, and really, not relevant here.

Properly, "hold accountable" invariably implies punishment or reward. There are two ways and only two ways to do this with the Chief Executive: We deny him a vote, or we impeach him. The latter option, the last time I checked, wasn't for policy disagreements.

I'm sure you think you have a larger point here, but on the direct point, you're simply wrong.

That is the common thread I was drawing between Social Security and Iraq: that the failure of the President enact his SS agenda was a direct result of his failure to convince the electorate that it was a good idea, and that his ongoing failure to convince the electorate that staying in Iraq is a good idea will eventually have a similar result on his ability to sustain that war.

Oh, this belonged a few paragraphs up. Sorry.

This would be great were we living in an ahistorical vacuum. If you'll cast your mind back five long years, you'll remember that everyone was shocked that Bush was running on reforming Social Security. They used to call it "the third rail," back in those olden times.

To save a great deal of snide ammunition, let me summarize it this way: They called it the third rail of American politics for a reason: No one wanted to change the system, and there was a generalized belief that even suggesting it was electoral poison. Bush explained more or less what he wanted. He kept doing it. He hasn't really stopped doing it in one shape or form since.

The miracle is that it's now ok to talk about changing social security. The harsh reality, however, is that, despite what the Left seems to think, it's not possible to talk people into supporting something they don't want.

So, given that Bush hasn't shut up about reforming social security, and hasn't been shy about it since before he even became the Republican candidate in 2000, I have to call shenanigans on the "Bush hasn't explained enough" argument here. He has. People don't want what he's selling, which isn't surprising, as, first, senior citizens are apparently easily frightened self-centered creatures, second, Baby Boomers are scared-of-death self-centered creatures, and third, those younger than the other groups don't have a vested stake yet.

Which is actually a curious parallel with Iraq: Bush couldn't freaking shut up about how hard this whole adventure was going to be, how we had hard work ahead of us in Iraq, how we'd be engaged in the War on Terror through perhaps a generation. This has not stopped the idiotarians (I miss using that word) from saying Bush promised a cakewalk. He didn't; either no one was listening, or they've since decided that they don't want what he's selling.

Which is fine, and that's what 2008 is for.

We're starting to see that now, and its eventual outcome is that the GOP goes through what the Democrats went through when the American people got sick of their arrogance and entrenched corruption in the early '90s.

Actually, as one of the sick, I'd postulate that it was watching what happened when Clinton bought off a Democrat Congress to pass NAFTA that really stuck in the collective craw. Rostenkowski was nice dressing, but the meat of the problem, I'd suggest, was watching what happened when the full culmination of 1992 had its hands at the wheel.

But, to each their own narrative.

I think this nation is healthiest when our elected officials reach out to and consider everyone they represent, instead of playing the system to get 51% and telling the other half of the country to get stuffed. When Republicans were out of power, they said much the same thing about Democratic arrogance--one of the rallying cries of the right, as I recall, was that Democrats were "out of touch" with the American people.

They did this to get 51% or more of the vote.

Indeed, while your little vision is cute, it's kinda contrary to the way the system is set up, and is, if anything, a harkening back to those halcyon days when the Donkeys were the dominant party, and the Republicans limped along looking for table scraps.

Y'all's turn now.

Is saying you're wrong, except insofar as you're asserting that changing the makeup of Congress has any impact on the President's policy choices.

I didn't think I was vague about this.

why do you even bother with people like this?  Are ya a masochist or something?

Life's been crazy lately, and I needed a place to vent spleen, however poorly. I also broke a rule about only mocking bad faith posters, and only debating with good faith ones.

I'm Catholic. Of course I'm a masochist.

Reading the string, I thank Thomas for representing rational thought while I was gone. Not being from Virginia, or a regular participant in dumb bar bets, I had not heard the Commonwealth nonsense before. Of course being from California, I'm seeing this state transform from a state of the Union to a state of confusion, but which can thanked for providing Babs Boxer, Nancy Pelosi and Cindy the media...person of easy virtue, as leaders of the Left. So there may soon be only 49.

Liberals love polls, because absent core values and having to rely on moral relavancy for decision making, they need to know which way the wind blows. Clinton was a veritable weather vane. True leaders, like Bush, with core values, set their course and you can follow or get left behind. And, like Henry V said, "count their manhood cheap". Bush was elected to be President and he does not need to have Gallop take a poll to see what he should do. You lost the election.  Either, go stand on a street corner, or in a ditch, with a sign in your hand until the next Republican victory or find a candidate that can win and work for him, ummmm her.

The chickenhawk argument is soooo lame and passe.

I see that you had been previously warned about the lame talking points.

Now comes the 'chickenhawk' nonsense, and with it, your all-expense-paid trip to The Pile.

Don't confuse the little people with facts.  Their minds are already made up that Bush announced that nothing bad would ever happen after that date and if it did it was going to be all his fault.

When you point them to what he actually said, their teensy brains may actually melt.

 Looks like me and the rest of mainstream America just aren't welcome here.

 Too bad Tbone. I'm stayin' whether you want me or not.

A rhetorical question is not intended to be asnwered, therefore the addressee is unimportant. My post was simply meant to encourage self-examination by whomever read it.  I hope that it served that purpose.

I certainly meant no offense.  I thought I made it clear that I don't know you and therefore was not in a position to judge.  If I did not, I apologize.  My question, as I stated in the post, was intended to be rhetorical, meaning that it was not meant to be answered.  I merely wanted everyone who read it to feel like it called for self-examination regarding how each one of us supports the war effort.  Apparently, it did not evoke that kind of response in your case.

The greater point is that most Americans do not feel the war in their daily lives.  The average American does not even know how many U.S. Troops have been killed in this war.  The average American is not asked to sacrifice anything in order to support the war.  This war is being fought mainly by "other people's" kids, and being financed by our grandchildren.  We are asking today's youth to fight this war ill-equipped, and then asking their kids to pay for it.

is quite significant.  My husband is going back over quite soon.  He will be missing the first day of school for the second year in a row.  Missing my youngest child's first day of kindergarten, the first soccer games of the season, the last days of summer, you get the picture.

Lucky for us, he does get to come home and work 12-14 hour days in his office while he's home.

Sorry, I don't have to rethink my support for this war.  I live it on a daily basis.

Next?

then they need a new argument.  Perhaps it hasn't dawned on you that more republicans are enlisting -- after all, there's a reason that Al Gore didn't want those overseas ballots counted in the 2000 election, and as a 17-year veteran myself, I can gaurantee you that reasoning hasn't changed in the past 5 years.

terminology (i.e., New World Order), but regarding his mainpoint I think he's on to something.  Not only does it seem obvious to me that this war is about bringing democracy to the Middle East, but in fact, that's exactly what it should be about.

Look, if President Bush stands for anything he stands for long-term (vice short-term) solutions.  And following the 9/11 attacks, what strategy was likely to bring an end to (versus temporary relief from) the threat of global terrorism stemming from radical Islamic fundamentalism?  Just one, IMO: The overthrow of Middle Eastern mullahcracies and their replacement with some form of representative government.  Obviously, it would be imprudent to declare war on the entire Middle East in one lump sum (remember the quick retraction to the "Crusade" comment), so most of the work takes place diplomatically, away from the bright lights of the media.  Notwithstanding this distinction, it isn't as if the administration hasn't made this central point on repeated occasions.

The saddest part of all is that I believe many leaders in the Democratic Party understood this strategic calculus as well, yet attempted to capitalize on the administration's inability to vocalize it publicly in order to score cheap political points.  Frankly, I found their actions unconscionable given national security was/is at stake.

either docj or Catsy were implying that PResdient Bush should be responsive to polling.  I believe they were, however, making the legitimate (and uncontroversial, IMO) point that no elected leader operates in a vacuum between elections, and that the ability of a leader to get a sizeable portion of the American public behind him will largely determine his/her ability to get things done.  Just take President Clinton, for example: If I recall, he introduced national health care in his first year in office.  Despite the fact that he was not standing for election for another 3 years, the Republicans' ability to (properly) tar-and-feather that socialist scheme effectively relegated it to the scrap heap.  These are the realities that ALL democratically-elected eladers live with on a daily basis.

on all of that. If you check my posts I'm real sure you will find I have been saying the same thing since I began posting here.

But if you think the use of the term "New World Order" is innocent, I'd encourage you to think again.  

I agree that NWO is a term generally intended (if perhpas not specifically intended by flyerhawk in this instance) to whip up the conspiracy-laden leftist base.

those who have leveled false charges in the have no right to expect others to defend them against charges which are arguably false.

Truth or falsity hasn't mattered to these people, some of whom are posting on this thread, in the past so it doesn't matter to me today.

to explain how I'm "channelling" anyone.

You don't like the term New World Order because because of what images it evokes.  

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.  New World Orders always have good reasons.  And they aren't particularly nefarious.  But they generally ignore reality.

brought up the Chickenhawk argument and I could care less about Cheney's deferral or Bush ANG service.

But comments such as this....

I know liberals and there is not one who I would choose or expect to stand and fight. It is not their nature. Give them a safe corner in the USA and they will wave a sign, sing and play martyr. Why do Liberals get vehemently defensive?

server no purpose but to take cheap shots.  I realize that only Lefty trolling is frowned upon here, which is fine.  But how does saying that Liberals would never stand and fight further the discussion.  

I served 4 years in the Army and I suspect that is 4 more years than Tbone has ever served.  While I don't have any problem with him, or anyone else, not serving I do have a problem with someone smearing countless people for allegedly not doing something that many Conservatives choose not to do either.  What's even worse is that it is a flat out false.

their noses? I need to get out more.

My gracious thanks to you and your family for your sacrifice.  You are one of the very few who are truly sacrificing.  I can't imagine what it must be like.  I was not asking you or anyone to "rethink your support for the war".

...and I answered in bad.  It is somewhat embarrassing that my reply was the best I could come up with after about an hour of editing and re-editing responses that would have earned me at least a warning from The Editors™.  I took the question personally and it was clearly not intended so - my bad - mea culpa.

The greater point is that most Americans do not feel the war in their daily lives. ... The average American is not asked to sacrifice anything in order to support the war.

Good points and well made - it applies to the GWOT in general I might add, which is something I also lay at GWB's feet.  That said I must disagree somewhat with the statement surrounded by those two...

The average American does not even know how many U.S. Troops have been killed in this war.

With the daily drumbeat form the MSM in this regard, if indeed the average American does not know, to within a hundred or so, the casualty count, then these people should forfeit their right to vote for they clearly are not paying even minimal attention.

Regards.

... as used by European Leftists.

...otherwise corporate stock divestiture campaigns would not be so prolific and effective tools of both parties.