No Comments on Bush's Speech

kurto · #1 01-11-2007, 11:47 AM

I missed his speech. I only quickly read through a transcript of the first half this morning.

I find it interesting that once again he's going against the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

That being said, I don't know enough about the situation to know if his plan is realistic, but my first reaction was, "this could actually help?!?!" Or perhaps I'm just pleasantly surprised that he said he is taking some responsibility and trying something different when things clearly aren't working?

I'll have to read the rest later and really digest it but, my off the cuff reaction is actually slightly optimistic. (or just in shock... not sure which [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] )

amplify · #2 01-11-2007, 12:37 PM

I don't know exactly how one goes about resigning from the Republican party but after watching that garbage I am ready to do so. I have begrudgingly stayed with the party despite its obsession with tax cuts for the rich, fundamentalist Christian morality, and escalating the national debt. I accepted the theory that Saddam Hussein was a danger to his country and a destabilizing force in the region. I might have even sort of believed that military action in Iraq could help fight terrorism.

But I will not believe that after years of involvement with thousands of US soldiers dead, tens of thousands wounded, and unknown numbers of Iraqi deaths, that we are now in a position to escalate our presence by sending additional troops and extending the service of troops currently in the field, with a stated mission of securing and stabilizing Anbar province and the Baghdad area, a mission that has no defined end, and no specific goal.

Bush's delivery last night was mechanical, disturbing, even Orwellian in its perfunctory rejection of every reasonable alternative. I'm out.

kurto · #3 01-11-2007, 12:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know exactly how one goes about resigning from the Republican party but after watching that garbage I am ready to do so. I have begrudgingly stayed with the party despite its obsession with tax cuts for the rich, fundamentalist Christian morality, and escalating the national debt. I accepted the theory that Saddam Hussein was a danger to his country and a destabilizing force in the region. I might have even sort of believed that military action in Iraq could help fight terrorism.

But I will not believe that after years of involvement with thousands of US soldiers dead, tens of thousands wounded, and unknown numbers of Iraqi deaths, that we are now in a position to escalate our presence by sending additional troops and extending the service of troops currently in the field, with a stated mission of securing and stabilizing Anbar province and the Baghdad area, a mission that has no defined end, and no specific goal.

Bush's delivery last night was mechanical, disturbing, even Orwellian in its perfunctory rejection of every reasonable alternative. I'm out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its actually weird to just read a Bush speech. Because if you read it without his delivery, it probably reads as a better speech then what was actually delivered.

The sad thing to me is that he's always been this way. People who voted for him the first two times thought this was acceptable.

Its odd that you, a lifelong Republican, was so turned off by the speech. I can't stand Bush but I found a glimmer of hope in the speech. Odd.

Copernicus · #4 01-11-2007, 12:40 PM

One general interviewed after it (sorry, forget his name), said that the strategy and level of troops he's calling for are straight out of military textbooks. Which kinda makes you wonder why the textbooks weren't followed to start with.

It certainly appears to be the best strategy to win (as defined by the administration), and make a less clumsy exit if we don't win, blaming withdrawal on the inability of the Iraqis to police themselves.

It also backs the Dems into a corner with regard to funding because he's already given the orders to send in the extra troops, so they are put in the position of not funding troops already committed.

kurto · #5 01-11-2007, 12:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
One general interviewed after it (sorry, forget his name), said that the strategy and level of troops he's calling for are straight out of military textbooks. Which kinda makes you wonder why the textbooks weren't followed to start with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just the typical smug arrogance of this administration?

[ QUOTE ]

It certainly appears to be the best strategy to win (as defined by the administration), and make a less clumsy exit if we don't win, blaming withdrawal on the inability of the Iraqis to police themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it looks better.

This part is kind of crappy:

[ QUOTE ]
It also backs the Dems into a corner with regard to funding because he's already given the orders to send in the extra troops, so they are put in the position of not funding troops already committed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing politics with our troops like this and trying to force the politics and the American Public (who isn't behind Bush anymore) into this is just the typical tyrannical Bush that America has learned to hate and disrespect.

Dr. Strangelove · #6 01-11-2007, 01:04 PM

The idea that sending 15% more troops is going to put us in a position to win is [censored] retarded.

Copernicus · #7 01-11-2007, 01:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that sending 15% more troops is going to put us in a position to win is [censored] retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you understand the objective and strategy.

MoreWineII · #8 01-11-2007, 01:34 PM

I've got to hand it to Bush and his speech team, they packaged that about as well as they could have. And Bush only had a few minor stumbles while reading the teleprompter. I still don't believe 20k+ troops will fix what needs to be fixed so the biggest question I have after all this is where does Bush go from here? He might get a small grace period while people chew on this latest strategy switch, but it ain't gonna last long.

MoreWineII · #9 01-11-2007, 01:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The idea that sending 15% more troops is going to put us in a position to win is [censored] retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you understand the objective and strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain it then.

Dr. Strangelove · #10 01-11-2007, 02:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The idea that sending 15% more troops is going to put us in a position to win is [censored] retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you understand the objective and strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that if you define winning as "that which will result from adding 15% more troops," then yes, adding 15% more troops is the sure path to victory.