We all know that W is a huge baseball fan. This morning’s press conference at the White House provided the President with an opportunity to hit a home run.
The entire transcript will be available at the White House website and we won’t repeat the entire event here. We hope to get the video linked as soon as we find it.
The President finally articulated the truly mindless (there’s that word again) nature of liberal insistence that the US has failed/is failing in Iraq. After spending years of accusing the President of ignoring the realities in Iraq the liberal line hasn’t changed since the “Surge” began. The President actually cartooned on the libs by accusing them of “staying the course” by insisting that defeat is just around the corner.
The President’s position exposes the commitment to defeat in Iraq and failure in the larger War on Terror. When locked in a battlefield stalemate in Iraq, libs insisted that defeat was inevitable and the only course was to cut our losses and run in the face of al Qaeda and the local jihad. After more than a year of almost constant success, libs now say that victory is irrelevant and we should cut our losses and run in the face of a defeated al Qaeda so that they can reclaim the chaos they created between 04-06. Either way, the liberal answer is cut and run. Not since the Democrat Copperheads of 1863-1865 has an American political party been as committed to defeat at any price as are today’s Democrat leadership.
The President’s second great point was the silliness of meeting with tyrants like Raul Castro and the friendly and misunderstood Nazi, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who in a particularly Hitlerian diatribe now claims that Iran is the world’s number one power). Democrats continuously claim that W is wrong not to summit with the Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and their fellow anti-American dictators.
W’s response, meeting with tyrants legitimizes the tyrant. When POTUS meets with someone it vests in that person/country the legitimacy of recognition by the United States. In light of the statements in the link above, how does the rational reader think the world press , much less the Middle Eastern jihadist press, would play an American President meeting with Ahmadinejad?
W also was able to get in quite a few humorous quips that targeted the self-important rubes who pass for journalists in today’s America.
The entire transcript will be available at the White House website and we won’t repeat the entire event here. We hope to get the video linked as soon as we find it.
The President finally articulated the truly mindless (there’s that word again) nature of liberal insistence that the US has failed/is failing in Iraq. After spending years of accusing the President of ignoring the realities in Iraq the liberal line hasn’t changed since the “Surge” began. The President actually cartooned on the libs by accusing them of “staying the course” by insisting that defeat is just around the corner.
The President’s position exposes the commitment to defeat in Iraq and failure in the larger War on Terror. When locked in a battlefield stalemate in Iraq, libs insisted that defeat was inevitable and the only course was to cut our losses and run in the face of al Qaeda and the local jihad. After more than a year of almost constant success, libs now say that victory is irrelevant and we should cut our losses and run in the face of a defeated al Qaeda so that they can reclaim the chaos they created between 04-06. Either way, the liberal answer is cut and run. Not since the Democrat Copperheads of 1863-1865 has an American political party been as committed to defeat at any price as are today’s Democrat leadership.
The President’s second great point was the silliness of meeting with tyrants like Raul Castro and the friendly and misunderstood Nazi, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who in a particularly Hitlerian diatribe now claims that Iran is the world’s number one power). Democrats continuously claim that W is wrong not to summit with the Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and their fellow anti-American dictators.
W’s response, meeting with tyrants legitimizes the tyrant. When POTUS meets with someone it vests in that person/country the legitimacy of recognition by the United States. In light of the statements in the link above, how does the rational reader think the world press , much less the Middle Eastern jihadist press, would play an American President meeting with Ahmadinejad?
W also was able to get in quite a few humorous quips that targeted the self-important rubes who pass for journalists in today’s America.
13 comments:
sporie:
Geez, we can agree. The President finally articulated the truly mindless...
I, of course, would have used, "once again" rather than "finally".
Art,
Look up pest in the dictionary and get back to us if you find your name listed...
As for President Bush (not Mr. Bush as the irreverent Jackson calls our leader) I wish he could run for a third term. After all, President Bush is one of the very best Presidents to ever occupy the office and history will be far kinder to him than President Clinton.
Denver’s convention portents to a great Democratic schism with many groups vying for dominance while trying to suppress everyone else. Perhaps the long awaited battle between Feminists and African Americans is coming to a head this year. One can only hope they implode and their deals with the devil come back to finally haunt them.
kenrichards:
I suggest you give up any hope of becoming a professional soothsayer.
Your wishes for a third Bush term, an abhorrent idea, is not one shared even by many in your own party. I've never been fond of the 22nd Amendment but when considering Bush I can understand its wisdom.
We Dems are a wild bunch. Often we have little in common other than the very basics of political philosophy. Your bigoted hopes will not likely occur however; we ain't always bright but we ain't stupid either.
Would you be suggesting that I may be a nuisance? A few more nuisances like me in your life and you might have been brighter.
First of all, I’m a little concerned about the praise I’ve received lately from some of the R’s on this blog. You must realize it is likely to make me an outcast with my devoted D friends. Plus, I have to say there has been a lot of good, civilized discussion across party lines on this blog as of late. I am hard pressed to think of a more articulate and polite debater than our friend Art. Lots of other fellow libs (Essential Estrogen, Spotlight, Desmoinesdem) here who don’t resort to counterproductive name calling. Certain amount of sarcasm and pointing out of hypocrisy on both sides only makes the discussion more interesting and fun. And there is usually some truth in most political stereotypes.
On the war. Sporer, you must admit that I have said, for as long as we’ve been discussing this on your site, that the war has been a huge mistake and debacle even if we eventually “win” it. Considering all the costs (lives, $$, political capital), the overall gains from this war can in no way justify it.
One thing I will concede. Every true American should acknowledge that now that the war is reality, we must try to get out of there the best way we can. If the surge helped us in achieving that, kudos to W for pushing for it. But the reality is, we must be looking for a way out. I don’t think any sensible person can really agree with McCain’s comfort in staying there for 100 years. Iraqis must realize they have to take responsibility for their country as soon as possible. The people pushing for a pullout are doing everyone, including the Iraqis, a huge favor. I am extremely surprised by R’s, who usually talk about responsibility, being comfortable with the administration’s approach “you’ll get whatever you want for however long you want, no questions asked.”
rf:
A fine rendition of the Iraq situation. Besides all the military and administrative fiascos we blundered into, allowing and nurturing the establishment of an Iraq government was one of the worst. On its face it seemed so reasonable, "so democratic", but it deprived us of a great deal of control we could have enforced as occupiers.
Oh I know, this is so unAmerican, so contrary to what we believe in. Of course we forget that "preemptive war" is also unAmerican. We have backed into being a defacto, quasi, Iraqi army. We do enjoy reasonable latitudes, but we always have to play the game of appeasing the Iraq government.
At the same time we have no leverage to influence the Iraq government to get it in gear. We now have to move at their pace, not ours.
There was never much doubt that the Iraqis, given their history, were not going to put up with Al-Qeida indefinitely. In fact, their tribal initiatives commenced before the vaunted "surge". Does anyone consider that battling Al-Qeida, might be a unifying factor between Shia and Sunni? Of course now, besides additional military help we can give them money as well. Do any of the staunch conservatives here believe that once receiving a free lunch the Iraqi's won't milk it for as long as they can? Or is that a peculiarity only ascribed to we liberals?
A timetable a long time ago could have set in place a sense of urgency for the Iraq government to get off the pot. We could always have reached a milestone and pushed out the date. Successful or not, it would have provided some impetus.
No doubt we created this pig, an Iowan metaphor, and we have a responsibility to try and solve it; but for how long; at what cost?
It is nice that from a conservative point of view we have seen American, to say nothing of Iraqi, deaths decline to an "acceptable" level. In case no one noticed, slowly the bombing activity is picking back up. Sadr is holding off his army, hoping to hell we'll leave and the Sunni's are getting more and more disenchanted with us. If we don't stay, there will be chaos, and if we stay, chaos will return.
Dumbya has gotten us into a situation with no good results. "Winning" is laughable.
Art resorts to calling people bigots – how typical of his ilk.
What does he think about those in his party who advocate calling men “Deadbeat Dads” or “Sperm Donors?” Liberal Democrats push legislation to boot cars, post faces on pizza boxes and picket the places of employment of “Deadbeat Dads” and have conducted such campaigns with tax payer dollars as recently as last year in Ohio. And what about the feminists at Duke who refused, despite the complete exoneration of the players, to ever apologize for the actions taken against innocent men? For that matter, what about the faculty or the newspapers who published the pictures and names of these victimized boys who were presumed to be guilty rather than innocent? Why did the DA pay the price while the false accuser (not her first time either) faced legal or financial repercussions?
Where are your civil rights arguments when circumstances clearly favor a liberal sacred cow? Where is the liberal outcry against women winning custody cases a staggering 90% of the time? Don’t liberals claim they want equality for everyone? I guess it only applies to their favored groups rather than the general public.
Once again, Republican women stand up for consistency as they’ve voted repeatedly in favor of equal custody treatment in the Iowa legislature. Then again, most Republican women have a sense of fairness (like the men) and don’t attempt to gain advantage over others through nefarious means. Additionally, most Republican women believe in God and lead respectable lives. Of course Hillary refuses to pay her bills while telling us she can run the country. What a contrast.
kenrichards:
My, oh my, we seem to have hit a nerve.
Whether you like to admit it or not there are a helluva lot of "Deadbeat Dads". A helluva lot of children have gone wanting and gone hungry because some "Dads" didn't give a shit about doing their duty; about fulfilling their responsibilities.
It is unfortunate that all our legal systems, all in all, still the best in the world, are fraught with inequities. Often they are geared for the norm, the usual, and others fall through the cracks until something can be rectified, if ever. This is not particular to any political party.
"Deadbeat Dads" were and continue to be a problem. If you are not one, good for you, but it was an issue that needed to be addressed because far too many of we macho assholes felt that we could just be "Sperm Donors" and we could walk away and let the residue of our "Sperm" fend for themselves.
The Duke event was a fiasco across many fronts - btw, the DA was a Democrat. Had the DA not attempted to use the circumstances to further his career, it is doubtful many of the other parties would have piled on. Had it been handled consistent with our legal premises, presumption of innocence, it would have remained a local story. The DA deserved what he got because the evidence clearly showed he violated not only prosecutorial ethics but laws.
What was to be gained by further persecuting the girl. Yea, she did wrong, she falsely accused, but there were many elements in the system that should have caught that fact long before anyone did. I'll guarantee you all those people were not Democrats. Democrats, especially in the professions, are not plentiful in NC.
We all know there are exceptions but it has long been held in our society and in those which provided our ancestors, that children are best served by being with their mothers. You don't find many mothers on these blogs spitting venom, like some men.
It has also long been held that we men can fend for ourselves; that we can take on whatever and whomever we need to, to fix things. Some stay and fight, others run away.
When it comes to protecting and providing for mothers we Dems are not the Lone Ranger. Legislation notwithstanding, in most legal venues, final judgment is left to judges. They hear the individual complaints, see and hear the evidence, listen to the brilliance from the attorneys, and then they pass judgment. Are there unfair judges? No doubt. Can those judges be dealt with? Often, in one way or another.
Your hasty generalization of the moral values and fairness of "most" Republican women, may or may not have merit. Your implication that Democratic women are berift of moral values and fairness is balderdash. It represents a peevish mind, the fatuous rantings of a mind so closed that even Liquid Plumber couldn't open it.
If you want to posit logical, reasonable argument, go for it. If you want to dump all your emotional hangups, spare us.
I just responded to our bigot comment and pointed out the real bigots are far left liberals such as feminists. I used examples that begged an answer and I wanted to hear the liberal response to why they permit gross violations of civil rights under the "right" circumstances.
BTW-I am not behind in my child support and this is not about me. It is about liberals who want everything both ways.
rf, i know what you mean.
you do raise the one, and ultimately only, question that matters about iraq, will the long term benefits outweigh the costs. an intelligent decision won't be possible on that big historic question for many years to come.
if iraq ends up becoming something like a european democracy, even something like india or brazil, it will be well worth the expense in blood and money (i won't say treasure 'cause i don't want to sound like a pirate)because we will have a tangible and philosophic ally in the middle of the Middle East.
such a result is highly likely 'cause iraq was/is one of the more western and least backward places in the region. The only good thing about Saddam was his destruction of most of the socially and ideologically regressive aspects of islamic culture. this makes iraq a promising candidate for a post WW2 type transformational historic experience (e.g. Germany/Japan).
however, if iraq regresses into something like iran or pakistan, or even worse somalia or sudan, then we will have failed in the longer term mission. every dollar and every life will then have been wasted.
you also identify that the only short term issue is what policy is least likely to produce the later result.
moreoever, the only place i think you're dead wrong is the definition of getting out of iraq. libs define leaving iraq as a virtuous goal in itself. the question is what activities involve the military in iraq.
even if iraq becomes as peaceful as germany it still behooves us to keep 100,000 boys and girls over there, just like we did in Germany 60 years after VE Day, for the same reason-deter our most likely enemies who are in that region. the cost of that could be born by closing several american bases in somewhere like europe, where they are far less helpful to 21st Century American policy.
right now iraq combat casualties are less than just accidental casualties in the military at large. if that trend continues, as all evidence seems to indicate, our iraqi mission changes dramatically, just like it did in Germany. however, we are lot closer to afghanistan or somalia in Bagdad or Kirkuk than we are at Rammstein AFB in Germany, are we not?
however, if we are involved in heavy combat much past next year we obviously need to change tactics again because prolonged stalemate is simply murder. to acheive that goal the iraqi military and police situation must continue the rapid improvement we have seen over the last year.
i will close with laughing at US congressmen, especially Senators (and members of both parties do this) bitch about the Iraqi Parliament. Vote wrong in the US Senate and you might, at worst, be defeated. Vote wrong in Iraq and terrorist might kill your entire family. At least the Iraqis passed a budget.
by intelligent i mean fully informed, not "smart".
Sporer,
When I actually listen to you, other R’s and D’s talk about the Iraq situation, it sounds like most reasonable people have come to more or less the same conclusion. We are just focusing on different things to keep the partisan fires going.
It’s pretty clear you are not too crazy about continuing active fighting nonstop for the next 100 years in Iraq either. On the other hand, your point about the need for US military presence in the area is probably right. I agree, we should close some of the bases (certainly in Europe, maybe elsewhere) and establish them in strategically more advantageous places. Of course, you must be very diplomatic with this stuff so as not to piss off too many people.
If you want to see photos of a President legitimizing despots by getting his picture taken with them, go to Ken Silverstein's blog. He links to several such photos of the current legitimizer.
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002522
----Spotlight
Post a Comment