I have my bib on, Mr. President...
 

... so go ahead and feed me a line of bullsh*t. I'll be glued to my tv, anxious to be told what to think. In the meantime, I'll reflect on what got us to this point. Want to come with, sir?


The difference is clear to over 1700 American soldiers and their families, sir.


Huh? Maybe Condi meant mushroom tip?


Oh, it's my fault we can't find the WMD. I did not know that.


Cool! So where are they?


Can you be more specific?


Psssst, Mr. President, don't you mean democracy is on the march?


[Janis Joplin] Interrogation is just another word for torturous abuse. [/Janis Joplin]



There. I feel much better now. On with the show, Mr. Bush.


Last throes.

I am looking forward to the speech for far different reasons. I suppose it is all who you trust.

While Sac certainly shows very real inconsistencies in what has been said by various members of the administration and the President, and a change in tune on WMD, I will again point out that Jordanian, British, Egyptian, and Russian intelligence services also said they had WMD, as did Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, blah, blah, blah. Should Saddam not have repeatedly violated those tenets of the cease fire from Gulf War I requiring instant access to any cite for inspection, perhaps verification of no existance could have been achieved. We know he had them and used them before, and we have no evidence of their destruction.

But this has all been discussed before. I guess we'll do it again.

Do I wish to trust the what I am told in the news?

The large portion of the media and many prominent dems told us around 10,000 troops would be lost in the initial assault. It was about one tenth of that.

The large portion of the media and many prominent dems told us that we'd never be able to turn over sovereignty to the Iraqis by the deadline of June 30, 2004, but it happened earlier than that.

The large portion of the media and many prominent dems told us that elections could never happen in the time frame given.

The large portion of the media and many prominent dems said we'd never be able to clean out Fallujah, or that doing so would result in hundreds of US casualties.

The large portion of the media and many prominent dems said that the Iraqis were too factionalized to ever come together and form a government or construct a constitution. They have and they are.

The media doesn't bother to inform us that after the end of "hostilities" in WWII in Germany it took about 2.5 years for the insurgency of Hitler supporters to be controlled.

I realize that "doom and gloom" makes the best news. I realize it is not going as well in Iraq as I would like it. I also realize it is better than the media told us it would be and better than they are telling us it is now. I realize that benefits of democracy in the Middle East are numerous.

I also realize that public support for the war is now below 40%. Interestingly, a poll around the same time said that trust in the national media is at an all time low.

I am certain that the speech tonight will sway that public opinion a bit. I am curious as to why NBC and CBS are, at this point, not planning on airing the speech.

I would offer that if I said a week before the invasion that over two years into the operation we would have lost only 1700 (or so) Americans, I would have been laughed at and told it would be 10 times that at least. Am I meaning to belittle the soldiers that have died? Not in the least, as every death is tragic and I do mourn for the families of the soldiers. The question is oft posed to supporters of the war "Would you want your son or daughter to die for Iraq?". Well, the answer is that I would be very proud if my child was serving in the armed services and fighting in Iraq, and I would be praying whole heartedly for their safety, as I do now for the soldiers there daily.

I know that there is no one here that wishes for bad things to happen in Iraq to further a certain political agenda. We have different reasons for and different perspectives and different people that we trust as sources for what is happening. I would offer, though, that conflict and change takes time, and I hope, as does everyone here, that it is resolved as quickly as possible.

How much time? I've heard military leaders estimate 8-10 years. In the time we have been in Iraq, we have suffered more casualties than Vietnam did in the same period of time. Due to these facts and unlike WW2, nobody is signing up for this war. If we are there for 10 more years, maybe you will get a chance to be proud of you children over there, whether they want to be there or not, because I can't see how we are going to do this without a draft coming back.

I'm not going to even bother to watch tonight. My blood pressure can't handle it. Are we going to hear that the insurgency is in its last throes, even though, by all realistic accounts it is growing, not shrinking. Are we going to hear that liberals don't have the backbone to fight? Are we going to hear all about how good an idea the social security plan is?

No thanks, I'd rather chew aluminum foil than listen to this guy lie through his teeth, while our soldiers continue to get killed on a daily basis.

I'm just going to take on 2 points here, as a full rebuttal could take all night (not to mention that Daddy has to make sure not to get his pressure up).

Not so fast! Ever heard of Hussein Kamel?

Hussein Kamel, son-in-law of Saddam Hussein, defected to the US in 1995. Is this ringing a bell?

Kamel was widely praised after his defection for providing the US with evidence of weapons Saddam possessed that the US had no knowledge of. Great guy, that Kamel.

Until... he told us that the WMD we sought had been destroyed, on his order, back in 1991 to keep weapons inspectors from finding them. The chicken hawks didn't want to listen to him then. He conflicted with their carefully constructed rationale for invasion.

General Saati, of the Iraqi army backs up everything Kamel said, but since we've had him in solitary confinement, we're not able to hear too much from him lately.

So that's two highly placed members of Saddam's government saying in no uncertain terms that the weapons we sought had been destroyed, not to mention our utter failure to find any, all the while professing that we know right where they are.

You have evidence. You just don't choose to believe it.

Sovereignty

To borrow a line from the Princess Bride - "You keep using that word and I do not think you know what it means"

Jihadist

Doing his level best to tie Iraq to 9/11.


Liar.

Complete the mission!

Awww now Don't be that way

I thought he did pretty good

Why do you hate America?

*Scrooge ducks*

I also hate freedom. And apple pie.

Mothers

They're the worst

Did ya catch the recruitment pitch at the end? I can smell the desperation from here.

I kinda liked it :)

Only because I think he tanked. Nothing new, same talking points, 6 mentions of 9/11. And the thing is, nobody is going to change their mind as a result of this speech. Anyone that supports the war after that speech, supported it before the speech. I don't think it will fix his plummeting numbers and I don't think it will lessen the anger that is growing over his blunders. In that regard, I liked the speech.

C'mon MBC, that little tear right at the end didn't get ya??

Tough audience

Well I don't mean to speak for MBC, but if "tough" = discerning, then yes.

Largely predictable verbiage, though the "higher calling" recruitment was unexpected and cringe-worthy.

Please, don't ever, don't ever compare this war favorably with WWII.

It didn't start the same way. It didn't end the same way. It wasn't fought the same way. And we were doing it with the support of many, many other allies.

We may have removed the dictator, but the circumstances surrounding all of it makes it quite a different situation.

There was only one line that gathered any applause in the speech. One of the commentators on ABC said that it was started by the Bush entourage at the back of the room. Not that this level of orchestration surprises me. It did cause me to consider though that if this speech does not improve his numbers, pretty much nothing will. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.


Well said, LSPE. :)

I found this online. It is a translation of the speech.

Well, after my anticipation of the speech, I was unable to view it. I forgot my daughter had a basketball game at the same time of the speech. I also had to coach a game tonight at 7:30, so i just got home and haven't even read the transcript.

I will read it when I am able and offer opinions then - just didn't want anyone to think I was avoiding the subject.

To respond to LSPE, I am not comparing the missions, the start, the purpose, or anything regarding WWII to this war with the exception of the fact that insurgencies lasting years after the end of major combat operation are the norm, not the exception.

Well, regime changes that necessitate the building of a standing army and police force ending in utter failure is the norm, not the exception.

True, but in 2.25 years, we've lost 1700. Over a 10 year period, that would be 6800. Vietnam, if I recall my histoty, had US involvement from 1961 until 1973, a period of 12 years, with 58000+ dead. Not much of a comparison.

Now granted, it's certainly not a realistic comparison because I believe at the height of the Vietnam war we had around 500,000 troops there, but in the first 2.25 years, our troop involvement was significantly less in Vietnam than it has been in the first 2.25 years of our involvement in Iraq.

That assumes that the level of attacks remains the same. I'm not convinced that the violence won't get much worse before it gets better. I don't buy the whole "Insurgency is in it's last throes" line of thinking. I think there are plenty more, perhaps an endless supply, of people more than willing to strap a bomb on themselves and kill as many of us as possible. I honestly believe we are breeding terrorists far quicker than we are taking them out.

All it would take is a few McVeigh-type fertilizer bombs in well placed areas to see our casualties skyrocket. And since we have less control of the Iraqi borders than our own, who knows what could be smuggled in. It's not that far-fetched of an idea, is it? I guess my point is just that, a lot can happen in 10 years, especially as the hatred for the US grows.


And as long as Vietnam was mentioned, here's a quote:

Yeah, like a draft being instituted - youngsters, shockingly :rolleyes:, are not flocking to Dubya's extended jihad and recruitment has dropped to dangerously low levels* - and both my sons will be of draft age within the next ten years or so. If my sons are drafted to fight, I, unlike scaeagles who would be proud to have his children involved in this war, will be furious. Homicidal even. Or maybe just Canadian, eh?



*And nothing can go wrong by lowering the standards of enlistment, right? After all, the lowering of expectations is what the Bush boardroom is all about.


What, exactly, do you know about sacrifice, sir?

WMD...Spreading democracy...Hunting down the terrorists...Because we can.

Sir, I'm going to have to respectfully request that you stop poli-fvcking the 3000 corpses of September 11. It's unseemly, disgusting and, frankly, it should be beneath the POTUS. But it's probably to be expected from a man who would surround himself with the American flag and military personnel while spewing pro-war propaganda in an effort to lift sagging approval numbers.


Gee, is that all?

A bargain at twice the price!

Sac, my posting of numbers was not to belittle any of the lives that have been lost or will be. It was simply in response to MBC's comparison of the numbers killed in Iraq to the numbers killed in Vietnam in the first couple years. His comparison is not really valid because we've had around 150,000 troops Iraq, but our early involvement in Vietnam only involved about one tenth of that. In making a comparison of 6800 (my extrapolated estimate) and the 58000 killed in Vietnam, I am simply saying that there really is no comparison.

I am not commenting on the President’s speech last night.
But I am in favor of reinstating the draft.
It is my belief that if you have compulsory service you also have more pressure on the politicians to not get us into a war or police action or what ever you want to call it.
We must not count on the Reserves and the Guard to be our main ground forces. They are designed to supplement our main forces.
When you have an all volunteer forces it is easer for the general public to not pay much attention and not put pressure on our politicians, after all the forces volunteered for it.

I know from first hand experience what the draft does as I had a draft number of 52 I had to make a decision of what to do, allow myself to be drafted, enlist or go to Canada. For me the choice was to enlist. I served in the Army from 71 though 74. I was fortunate not to have to serve in Vietnam.

gay marriage is now legal in Canada.

i like Canadian bacon.

you don't have to call me sir in the LoT.:p

Good thinking, MickeyLumbo. I'll just have my sons marry a couple Canadian studs and the military is sure to leave them alone.

Then again, the military might be so desperate for recruits by then that they welcome gays with open, uh, arms.

Thank you for your service. I mean that quite sincerely.

I've now read the transcript of the speech, and I think it was a very fine speech indeed.

I was most happy that he refuses to out any sort of artificial time table for being out of Iraq. That would be stupid, and those who call for a specific date for pullout, such as Chuck Schumer, are quite misguided in wanting one. Setting a deadline only encourages the insurgents to to stick it out until that date. Also, it's unrealisitic in any conflict to do that. I would list an example, but I don't want to be accused of Clinton bashing, and I was fully supportive of our actions in Bosnia anyway. He just shouldn't have picked a date to have our troops out.

I find it funny how critical the dems are that we are there at all. It was dems who demanded a joint resolution of Congress to vote on use of forece so that they could be seen as pro-war in the climate of public opinion at that time.

As far as the lack of applause lines, I have heard that Tim Russert mentioned that the reason NBC (and presumably CBS as well) did not want to air the speech was that they were afraid it would just be a pep rally. To assure them it would not be, NBC was told the troops in the audience would be told to hold their applause until the end of the speech, so they opted to air it.

9/11 is all about terrorism. For those who do not believe Iraq had any ties to terrorism, I refer you to an article listing numerous ways, many cited during the Clinton administration, of ways the Iraq and Saddam were supportive of and assisting Al Qaida. So I think it is perfectly valid for there to be references to 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence. The Taliban did not attack us - the attackers on 9/11 weren't Afghanis - but the Taliban was supportive of Al Qaida. I won't bother to list the terrorist connections here, but anyone who is interested can refer to this link.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccart...0506290912.asp

Now, before there are gasps that I dare to post a link to National Review, it does not change that the listed information all happened. The list is toward the end of the piece.

Would that be "the intelligence and facts [that] were being fixed around the policy"? When reports of tubes that could be used for nuclear warheads (in the same way a potato could be used as a cannon ball) turns into press conferences declaring definitive proof of WMD, I have a hard time believing that these supposed corroburating intelligence reports from around the world had much stronger evidence. Bush wanted a war, and he went and made sure every report was interpereted in a way that would support that war, even if it meant taking "could"s, "maybe"s, tenuous links and longshots and turning them into absolutes.