|
|
#51
10-25-2006, 02:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
The many lies and flip-flopos of George W Bush
[ QUOTE ]
This attack on Bush has little material substance. [/ QUOTE ] On the contrary, this attack on the latest round of lies emanating from the White House is going at the heart of the matter. Bush has been both distorting the opposition's objectives and flip-flopping on hiw own. Starting with his own, what can one say, when one is looking back at the last thee years? It started with WMDs, then it was hints about connections to 9/11 and Qaeda, then it turned to deposing a dictator, then it was about holding the country together, and so on. The objective keeps getting more and more blurry and fuzzy. As to the oppositon's objectives, Bush and his followers starte immediately to misrepresent them. Bush has accused opponents or critics of the war as doing essentially the work of the terrorists, then of being essentially cowards who want to cut and run, then that they don't have a plan, etc etc. The American neo-con cabal has implemenetd its plans to invade the Middle East and establish a significant and long-term military presence there, on the soil of a client state. That's the whole idea behind the Iraqi adventure, but as a poker expert pointed out on this forum a couple of years ago, it just could not be sold as such to the American public or the world at large. Therefore, WMDs and similar myths had to be promoted, and they were. Calling Bush a liar is not new - but it is substantive. Mickey Brausch 
|
|
#52
10-25-2006, 05:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seize the opportunity
[ QUOTE ]
Once again you are a dishonest fount of BS rhetoric as are your libocrat sources. The president is clearly just saying he didn't mean "staying the course" to mean tactics, but that "staying the course" as to the goals is what he meant. [/ QUOTE ]This is, of course, clearly BS but let's move on, beyond the BS. The White House, for political and non-political [1] reasons, stubbornly insists that the American troops will not be placed under any kind of specific timeline. Because "this would help the terrorists", etc. All the Bush administration is saying is that the troops will leave when the security forces of Iraq can take security matters in their own hands. But the White House is willing to formulate (in fact, the White House seems keen to impose!) a timeline on the Iraqis to start "taking care of their country". That's fine. We accept transitivity. Mickey Brausch *** [1] : The non-political reasons have to do with the usual array of human biases. Not a domain exclusively ruled by Republicans, of course; not by any stretch.
|
|
#53
10-25-2006, 11:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: GWB flipflops too soon - says he never said \"Stay the Course\"
Show said we're winning the war. How so? And if we were winning, why would they be changing their tactics/approach? Why would they need to impose "artificial timetables" on the Iraqis? According to the president, victory involves a strong, stable, independent, democratic Iraq, capable of defending itself. Since he's also said that American troops will be there after he leaves office, he won't be able to declare victory. I just wonder how he measures "winning."
|
|
#54
10-25-2006, 11:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The many lies and flip-flopos of George W Bush
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This attack on Bush has little material substance. [/ QUOTE ] On the contrary, this attack on the latest round of lies emanating from the White House is going at the heart of the matter. Bush has been both distorting the opposition's objectives and flip-flopping on hiw own. Starting with his own, what can one say, when one is looking back at the last thee years? It started with WMDs, then it was hints about connections to 9/11 and Qaeda, then it turned to deposing a dictator, then it was about holding the country together, and so on. The objective keeps getting more and more blurry and fuzzy. As to the oppositon's objectives, Bush and his followers starte immediately to misrepresent them. Bush has accused opponents or critics of the war as doing essentially the work of the terrorists, then of being essentially cowards who want to cut and run, then that they don't have a plan, etc etc. The American neo-con cabal has implemenetd its plans to invade the Middle East and establish a significant and long-term military presence there, on the soil of a client state. That's the whole idea behind the Iraqi adventure, but as a poker expert pointed out on this forum a couple of years ago, it just could not be sold as such to the American public or the world at large. Therefore, WMDs and similar myths had to be promoted, and they were. Calling Bush a liar is not new - but it is substantive. Mickey Brausch [/ QUOTE ] I know it doesn't add much to just quote someone, but... great post.
|
|
#55
10-25-2006, 11:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The many lies and flip-flopos of George W Bush
|
|
#56
10-26-2006, 05:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The many lies and flip-flopos of George W Bush
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jq0j80UB_c&eurl= [/ QUOTE ] Its amazing how people just gobble up what the GOP [censored] into their mouths.
|
|
#58
11-08-2006, 06:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The President\'s Press Conference 11-08
[ QUOTE ]
"'Stay the course' means, let's get the job done, but it doesn't mean staying stuck on a strategy or tactics that may not be working." [/ QUOTE ] what is your point? You still think Bush lied about that?
|
|
#59
11-08-2006, 06:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The President\'s Press Conference 11-08
October 21: The White House insisted the meeting [with military personnel] was routine and that all that is in question is a change in tactics in the war, not an overhaul of broader strategy or goals.
From Tony Snow's 10-23 press briefing: Q: . . . is the administration considering a change in strategy in Iraq? MR. SNOW: No, again, we're -- let me go back through what we talk about. The strategy is to help Iraq defend, sustain, and govern itself, using three different approaches, all of which are interlocking and all of which are dependent upon the others, and that's security, economic and political. That's not going to change. Now, are the tactics by which we take a look at those things going to shift? Of course.
|
|
#60
11-08-2006, 06:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The President\'s Press Conference 11-08
[ QUOTE ]
October 21: The White House insisted the meeting [with military personnel] was routine and that all that is in question is a change in tactics in the war, not an overhaul of broader strategy or goals. [/ QUOTE ] Your bolding seems to imply that the strategy has changed. Yet you quote the strategy here: [ QUOTE ] From Tony Snow's 10-23 press briefing: Q: . . . is the administration considering a change in strategy in Iraq? MR. SNOW: No, again, we're -- let me go back through what we talk about. The strategy is to help Iraq defend, sustain, and govern itself, using three different approaches, all of which are interlocking and all of which are dependent upon the others, and that's security, economic and political. That's not going to change. [/ QUOTE ] So which part of this strategy is no longer on Bush's list of goals?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
